Oregon Nonpoint Source Program 2008 Annual Report · 2010. 4. 21. · Oregon Nonpoint Source Program 2009 Annual Report . E-1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . Background . This Nonpoint Source

DEQ Water Quality Division

2009

As required by the Federal Clean Water Act Submitted to EPA Region 10 State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality April 21, 2010

Oregon Nonpoint Source Pollution Program 2009 Annual Report

(Page Left Intently Blank)

Oregon Nonpoint Source Program 2009 Annual Report


State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Water Quality Division

Neil Mullane, Administrator Gene Foster, Manager, Watershed Management Section

Principal Authors Don Yon

Ivan Camacho Gene Foster Koto Kishida

Joshua Seeds

Contributing Authors Ken Diebel (ODA)

Kevin Brannan Adam Coutu

Audrey Eldridge Cheryl Grabham

Julie Harvey Kevin Masterson Larry McAllister

Debra Sturdevant Sheree Stewart

Jenny Wu, EPA Region 10




i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...E-1

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….1

General Description of Report…………………………………………………………..1

Highlights…………………………………………………………………………………....1

State of Oregon Water Quality Program……………………………………………….3

Partners………………………………………………………………………………….......4

State Agencies……………………………………………………………………….....4

Federal agencies………………………………………………………………………..4

2. Oregon's Water Resources……………………………………………………....5

3. Oregon’s Nonpoint Source Program…………………………………………...6

Description of NPS Program…………………………………………………………….6

Baseline Regulatory Statutes………………………………………………………….6

Non-Regulatory NPS Programs……………………………………………………….7

Program Directions and Priorities in 2009…………………………………………….8

Prioritization of NPS Activities in 2009………………………………………………..8

4. Nonpoint Source Activities and Accomplishments in 2009………………..9

Programmatic - NPS Management and Administration…………………………….9

Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA)………………………………………...9

Use of Incremental vs. Base Funds……………………………………………………13

Base Funds……………………………………………………………………………..13

Incremental Funds……………………………………………………………………..14


ii

Project Implementation (2009 Activities)………………………………………………15

Programs…………………………………………………………………………………….15

Total Maximum Daily Loads……………………………………………………………15

New Water Quality Standards………………………………………………………….18

Cross Program Efforts to Address Toxic Chemicals………………………………...19

Pesticide Management………………………………………………………………….20

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund……………………………………………..23

Drinking Water Protection in Oregon………………………………………………….27

Groundwater Management Areas (GWMAs)…………………………………………31

Coastal Zone NPS Program……………………………………………………………34

Monitoring and Data…………………………………………………………………….34

Land Uses…………………………………………………………………………………...36

Water Quality Issues on Agricultural Lands………………………………………….36

Water Quality Issues on State and Private Forest Lands…………………………..44

Water Quality Issues on Federal Forest Lands……………………………………...47

Progress of 319 Grant Funded Projects……………………………………………….52

Description of Types of 319 Nonpoint Source Projects…………………………….52

Grant Performance Report Summary………………………………………………...52

2009 – 319-Grant Funding Categories……………………………………………….52

Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 319-Funding…………………………52

2009 – 319-Grant Funded Projects…………………………………………………..52

Estimates of NPS Load Reductions………………………………………………….62

Watershed-Based Plans……………………………………………………………….65

5. Success Stories/Environmental Improvement………………………………75

WQ-10 Projects…………………………………………………………………………….75

SP-12 Projects……………………………………………………………………………..75


iii

APPENDICES

1. Progress of NPS 319 Funded Projects (Grant Performance Report)………..81 2. DEQ’s Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 319 Funded

Projects in 2009……………………………………………………………………….101 3. Review of Willamette Basin TMDL Implementation Plans in Meeting

Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements……………128

4. 2010 - 319 Grant Request for Proposal…………………………………………...164

Evaluation Criteria for 2010 - 319 Project Proposals…………………………………...164

Ranking Criteria……………………………………………………………………………….165

2010 – 319 Funding Categories…………………………………………………………….165

Project Proposals Received…………………………………………………………………167


iv

TABLES

Table 1. 2008-2010 Performance Partenership Agreement NPS and 319-Funded Related Water Quality

Component ............................................................................................................................. …10 Table 2. 2009 Oregon’s 319 Grant Incremental and Base Funds Use…………………………………… . 13. Table 3 Oregon TMDLs Approved by EPA for 2009 ................................................................................ 16 Table 4. TMDL Implementation Requirements to DMAs .......................................................................... 17 Table 5. 2009 State Revolving Fund Activity on Nonpoint Source Projects ............................................. 25 Table 6. ODA Compliance Investigations Initiated By Complaint, Staff Observation, and Landowner

Request – 1998 through 2009 .................................................................................................... 40 Table 7. ............................................................ODA Investigations Conducted in 2009 by ODA Region 40 Table 8. Types of Water Quality Concerns Identified In Complaints or During Investigations ................. 41 Table 9. Total Agency Actions Taken in 2009 .......................................................................................... 41 Table 10. Forestland Conversions State Agencies Training Location and Schedule ............................... 46 Table 11. FS and BLM Accomplishments by Basin 2003 to 2007 ............................................................. 50 Table 12. 319 Projects Funded in Response to the 2009 RFP by Region and Basin/Subbasin ............... 54 Table 13. 319 Projects Funded in Response to the 2009 RFP by Type of Project, BMPs, and Parameters

of Concern 57 Table 14. Estimates of NPS Load Reductions of Selected 319 Funded Projects ..................................... 63 Table 15. EPA’s Basic Components of a Watershed Plan ........................................................................ 66 Table 16. Summary of Review of Willamette Basin TMDL Implementation Plans in Meeting Watershed

Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements 70 Table 17. Progress of NPS 319 Funded Projects (Grant Performance Report) 81 Table 18. DEQ’s Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 319 Funded Projects in 2009 101 Table 19. City of Eugene TMDL Implementation Plan 129 Table 20. City of Creswell TMDL Implementation Plan 135 Table 21. City of Lowell TMDL Implementation Plan 141 Table 22. Benton County TMDL Implementation Plan 147 Table 23. Upper Willamette and Upper Siuslaw Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan

(AgWQMAP) 153 Table 24. BLM Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) (TMDL Implementation Plan) 159 Table 25. Project Proposals Received in Response to the 2010 RFP 167

FIGURES

Figure 1. Waterbodies of Oregon ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2. ODA Water Quality Staff Outreach Activities -- 2009 ................................................................. 38 Figure 3. Soil and Water Conservation District – Number of Activities – 2008-2009 ................................ 39 Figure 4. 2009 Funding Catagories ........................................................................................................... 53 Figure 5. Oregon’s Wilson River Is Popular Site for Kayakers and Canoeists .......................................... 76 Figure 6. Restoration Projects in the Lower Wilson River Watershed ....................................................... 77 Figure 7. Bacteria Levels in the Wilson River ............................................................................................ 78 Figure 8. 2010 Funding Categories ......................................................................................................... 166


E-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background This Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) program update report is to meet the requirements of section 319 (h) (8) and (11) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1329). The report documents the activities and accomplishments of the State of Oregon in general and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in particular regarding the administration of the State’s NPS Program during the period January – December 2009. For this year’s Oregon NPS Program Annual Report, DEQ worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 staff early in 2009 to develop a workplan for the NPS Program Annual Report. This included developing the contents of the report. EPA also provided assistance in the review of 319-grant work plans and processing Oregon’s grant; GRTS technical assistance and training to develop pollutant load reduction estimates of the 2009 funded projects; identify how required nine element watershed plans may be achieved and developed; and to write success stories for WQ-10, SP-12, and environmental progress on the Tillamook River Basin. EPA is also in the process of writing additional success stories and developing pollutant load reduction models for the most prevalent 303(d) listed pollutants in Oregon for temperature and bacteria. General Description of Report Following EPA Section 319 Grant reporting guidelines, the report contains the following required elements:

• Description of Oregon’s NPS Program.

• Description of Oregon’s Baseline Regulatory Statutes and Non-Regulatory NPS Programs.

• Program Directions and Priorities in 2009.

• Nonpoint Source Management and Administration, Including a Description of Oregon’s Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) and Use of Incremental and Base Funds.

E-2

• Identification of the 2009 Project Implementation Activities, which Included the Following Programs/Projects:

o Total Maximum Daily Loads o New Water Quality Standards o Toxic Chemicals o Water Quality Issues on Agricultural Lands o Pesticide Management o Water Quality Issues on State and Private Forest Lands o Water Quality Issues on Federal Forest Lands o Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund o Drinking Water Protection in Oregon o Coastal Zone NPS Program o Monitoring and Data o Groundwater Management Areas (GWMAs)

• Progress of 319 Grant Funded Projects, including Grant Performance Report

Summary, Description of Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 2009 319 Funding, of 2009 – 319-Grant Funded Projects and Categories.

• Calculated Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sediment, and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Pollutant Load Reduction Estimates of the 2009 Funded Projects.

• Description of DEQ’s Watershed-Based Plans.

• Success Stories/Environmental Improvement (WQ-10 Projects and SP-12 Projects).

Major Accomplishments

• In 2009, DEQ distributed over $1,387,400 in 319 NPS source grants to 35 projects.

• Twelve (12) of the thirty-five (35) 2009 319 funded projects were identified to

produce an estimated total load reduction of 49,471 Pounds/Year Nitrogen Reduction, 17,407 Pounds/Year Phosphorous Reduction, 94,556 Pounds/Year Biological Oxygen Demand Reduction, 16,461 Tons/Year Sediment Reduction.

• The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Loan Program provided

loans of $9,656,650 towards NPS water quality improvements.

• Seventy-four (74) 319-funded projects are still open; including the thirty-five (35), 2009 funded projects.


E-3

• DEQ received approval from EPA on the Miles Creeks (Middle Columbia-Hood) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

• DEQ has been developing TMDLs in several basins impaired by NPS pollution and expects to issue TMDLs for the following basins: Klamath and Lost River; Wallowa, Imnaha, and Lower Grande Ronde; Malheur; John Day; and Mid-Coast Basins.

• ODA, in 2009, initiated 62 compliance investigation cases statewide with the majority in the northwest part of the state.

• DEQ began the rulemaking process that will set new water quality standards for toxic pollutants based on a new fish consumption rate, a review of Oregon’s turbidity standard, and developing strategies for implementing the sedimentation narrative criterion. In addition, DEQ began developing a Toxics Reduction Strategy.

• DEQ reviewed five Willamette River Basin TMDL Implementation Plans using EPA’s Watershed Planning components and Nine Key NPS elements. In general, the plans adequately addressed three out of the nine key elements. The five key elements were either partially met or not met at all.

• One EPA defined Environmental Success Story was provided for the Wilson River, Tillamook Bay as an SP-12 Project. No WQ-10 Project success story was written for 2009.

• For the 2010 319 NPS Implementation Grants, Oregon has received project requests for a total of $1,556,193 in the following project categories: BMP Implementation (45%), BMP Planning (24%), Restoration (22%), GWMA Implementation (5%), Effectiveness Monitoring (4%), and Information and Education (<1%).

Program Directions DEQ continues to implement the NPS Program and direct funding into basins impaired by NPS pollution. In addition, DEQ is continuing to work toward implementation of the watershed approach, which would incorporate the use of the EPA’s key watershed planning components with the nine key NPS elements. In addition, DEQ is committed to a continual improvement in coordination between the various DEQ Water Quality Programs including NPS, TMDLs, Integrated Report, Source Water Protection, Groundwater, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, and 319 Project Grants. In addition, DEQ has been working with staff from the Oregon Water Enhancement Board (OWEB), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and other funding entities to prioritize and coordinate our efforts to address nonpoint sources of pollution.


E-4



1

OREGON WATER QUALITY NPS PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL REPORT

1. Introduction

General Description of Report This NPS program update report is to meet the requirements of section 319 (h) (8) and (11) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1329). The report documents the activities and accomplishments of the State of Oregon in general and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in particular regarding the administration of the State’s Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Water Program. The report covers an update on the NPS activities implemented by the state during the period January – December 2009. Like many other years in the Oregon program, this period was productive. As described below, Oregon is making progress toward meeting the substantial challenges presented by NPS water pollution.

Highlights The State program continues to find innovative, cooperative, and community-based methods to improve water quality and enhance watersheds. Some of the activities and accomplishments for 2009 were:

• Distributed over $1,387,400 in 319 NPS source grants to 35 projects.

• DEQ for the first time completed load reductions estimates for twelve (12) 2009 319 funded projects. Total load reduction estimates by pollutant are as follows: 49,471 Pounds/Year Nitrogen Reduction, 17,407 Pounds/Year Phosphorous Reduction, 94,556 Pounds/Year Biological Oxygen Demand Reduction, 16,461 Tons/Year Sediment Reduction. Load reduction estimates were included in the EPA database GRTS (Grants Reporting and Tracking System).

• DEQ received approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Miles Creeks (Middle Columbia-Hood) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

• DEQ has been developing TMDLs in several basins impaired by NPS pollution and expects to issue TMDLs for the following basins: Klamath and Lost River; Wallowa, Imnaha, and Lower Grande Ronde; Malheur; and John Day Basins.

• DEQ began the rulemaking process for revising the human health criteria based on a fish consumption rate of 175 g/d (or about 23 fishmeals per month) and expects to be ready for the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adoption of revised criteria by late 2010.


2

• DEQ began the rulemaking process that will set new water quality standards for toxic pollutants based on a new fish consumption rate that is much more protective of human health than the existing rate in Oregon and expects to be ready for EQC adoption of revised criteria by late 2010.

• In addition, DEQ began reviewing the criteria for three naturally occurring earth metals: arsenic, iron, and manganese.

• DEQ resumed review of the state’s turbidity standard. This review is expected to be completed by mid-2011.

• DEQ convened an internal Sediment Work Group to work on strategies for implementing our narrative criterion regarding sedimentation. A technical analysis of physical habitat and biological data and a set of sediment indicators and potential benchmarks for Oregon was completed and forwarded to the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) for peer review.

• DEQ has adopted a comprehensive, integrated approach to address toxic pollutants in the environment. DEQ formed an external Toxics Reduction Strategy stakeholder group to help complete a draft of the strategy by early 2010. A draft DEQ Priority Toxics Focus List was released by DEQ on July 27, 2009.

• DEQ completed the Willamette Basin Rivers and Streams Assessment Report that summarizes over 10 years of data collected in the Willamette Basin by DEQ, watershed councils, municipalities, EPA, and university students using a random study design.

• DEQ issued the Willamette Basin Rivers and Streams Assessment Report that was written as a resource for water quality managers, watershed councils, municipalities and citizens to help understand the status of watershed conditions in the Willamette basin.

• Facilitated and participated in the Forestland Conversions Workgroup that was composed of seven state agencies to help improve coordination among the state agencies on forestlands being converted to other uses. Seven training sessions were conducted in all areas of the state where there is forest cover.

• DEQ, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) prepared the draft 5-Year Progress report to evaluate and make recommendations on revisions to DEQ/BLM and DEQ/FS MOU.

• On FS and BLM lands throughout Oregon, from 2003 to 2007, over $80.3 million dollars has been spent on active restoration. Over 1,600 miles of road have been improved, 484 miles have been decommissioned, riparian treatment was completed on 452 miles or approximately 25,000 acres, upland areas have had approximately 32,000 acres treated through various methods including slope stabilization, revegetation, silvicultural treatments, or livestock exclusion fencing and freshwater and coastal wetland restoration occurred on 4,807 and 1,500 acres.

• DEQ provided additional comments to BLM’s Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). DEQ expressed concerns in response to BLM’s Riparian Management Area (RMA) Strategy contained in the final Resource Management Plans. In July 2009, the BLM announced that the WOPR was being withdrawn.


3

• Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) produced fourteen reports associated with Agricultural Water Quality Management Area (TMDL Implementation) Plan biennial reviews. The reports include updates on compliance and monitoring efforts as well as a summary of progress toward plan objectives, including targets on outreach and projects.

• ODA and SWCDs used various venues to reach agricultural producers and rural land residents to promote conservation practices with ODA reaching about 4,000 people and SWCDs collectively made close to 22,000 contacts.

• ODA, in 2009, initiated 62 compliance investigation cases statewide with the majority in the northwest part of the state.

• The Water Quality Pesticide Management team (WQPMT) and ODA finalized the Oregon Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) and submitted it to EPA for approval. The PMP was reviewed by EPA and returned with comments to the WQPMT in August 2009 for upgrades. Comments and refinement by the WQPMT are pending.

• The DEQ and Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) RipStream project has completed the initial analysis to test whether current riparian protections on fish-bearing streams are adequate to meet water quality standards for temperature. The results were presented to the Board of Forestry (BOF) in September 2009.

• The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Loan Program provided loans of $9,656,650 towards NPS water quality improvements.

State of Oregon Water Quality Program State programs to protect or improve Oregon’s water quality date back to 1938. Oregon’s point source permit program was the second approved state program in the Country (September 26, 1973). More recently, the state also adopted another landmark program: in 1996, the state adopted the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds to focus work on watershed restoration and recovery of endangered salmonid populations. The state water quality program can be divided into the ten interdependent program elements listed below. The water quality program components are:

1. Water quality standards that establish beneficial uses for the waterbody as well as maximum levels of pollutants that can be in the waterbody without adversely affecting the designated use.

2. Permits for point sources, including stormwater, discharging pollutants to waters of the state.

3. Water Quality 401-Certifications for hydroelectric projects and dredge and fill activities.

4. NPS TMDLs specifically developed for forestry, agriculture, and urban activities.

5. Biennial assessment of State waters to identify those waters that are not meeting water quality standards.

6. Pretreatment, Sewage Sludge Management, and On-Site System programs to ensure that water quality is not compromised by other land-based activities.


4

7. Development of TMDLs, which are limits on pollution intended to bring rivers, lakes, and streams into compliance with water quality standards.

8. Cost-share grants and low interest loan programs to address municipal sewage treatment and disposal needs, and activities to reduce or eliminate nonpoint sources of pollution.

9. Information and education outreach activities to create awareness by the public about the importance of NPS pollution and its impact groundwater and surface water quality.

10. Facility or activity-specific compliance assessment, a pilot NPS effectiveness monitoring effort, technical assistance, and enforcement as warranted ensuring State water quality requirements are met.

Partners The cornerstone of the Oregon water quality program is, to the maximum extent practical, to identify solutions at the local community level. Watershed Councils, Soil and Water Conservation and Irrigation Districts, cities and counties all play an important part in the state’s strategy. Oregon has relied on longstanding partnerships to address various activities and sources of nonpoint source pollution. Many of the state’s departments, boards, and commissions are now actively involved in addressing nonpoint source pollution and other watershed concerns. In addition, federal agencies are also partners. DEQ partners include but are not limited to the following: State Agencies

• Department of Agriculture www.oda.state.or.us • Department of Forestry www.odf.state.or.us • Parks and Recreation Department http://egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/index.shtml • Department of State Lands http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/index.shtml • Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

http://egov.oregon.gov/DOGAMI/index.shtml • Marine Board (Boat Ramps and Other Access Points) http://www.boatoregon.com/ • Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board www.oweb.state.or.us • Department of Fish and Wildlife www.dfw.state.or.us • Department of Land, Conservation and Development www.lcd.state.or.us • Department of Economic & Community Development www.econ.state.or.us • Department of Transportation www.odot.state.or.us

Federal Agencies

• U.S. Forest Service http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/ • U.S. Bureau of Land Management http://www.blm.gov/or/st/en.html • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/home.asp

http://www.oda.state.or.us/�

http://www.odf.state.or.us/�

http://egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/index.shtml�

http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/index.shtml�

http://egov.oregon.gov/DOGAMI/index.shtml�

http://www.boatoregon.com/�

http://www.oweb.state.or.us/�

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/�

http://www.lcd.state.or.us/�

http://www.econ.state.or.us/�

http://www.odot.state.or.us)/�

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/�

http://www.blm.gov/or/st/en.html�

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/�

http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/home.asp�


5

2. Oregon's Water Resources Oregon ranks as the tenth largest state in the nation with its nearly 97,000 square miles. The Oregon landscape is diverse and surface water resources are a major feature of Oregon. The state has over, 6,200 lakes, 9 major estuaries, over 360 miles of coastline, and 111,619 miles of rivers. End to end; Oregon’s rivers could circle the Earth four and a half times. At present, responsibility for managing its water resources is divided between several state agencies that work in an active and effective partnership to protect state waters. Figure 1. Waterbodies of Oregon


6

3. Oregon’s Nonpoint Source Program Description of NPS Program Oregon’s NPS Program is intended to control or prevent nonpoint source pollution to attain water quality standards and thereby protect the beneficial uses of all state waters. Oregon will promote and support programs and activities that are guided by best available science and implemented through an adaptive management approach. In addition, Oregon will realize these goals by striving for broad community acceptance and involvement. Oregon’s strategy for improving state waters is on a watershed basis. The state has 21 river basins and 91 sub-basins. The state’s NPDES permitting, assessment, and TMDL work has been aligned and prioritized according to these sub-basins. There are Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) and basin coordinators assigned to each GWMA and basin/subbasin. They take the lead role as GWMAs and TMDLs are developed and implemented. The types and extent of water quality impairments, as well as available resources and impediments vary geographically. It is therefore critical to consider GWMA/basin specific conditions and develop local priorities and solution for local problems to achieve water quality improvements. Baseline Regulatory Statutes

The NPS program relies on the following State of Oregon and federal rules and regulations:

• Federal Clean Water Act; • Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); • EPA National Estuary Program; • NOAA CZARA Section 6217 Coastal NPS Control Program; • Oregon water quality standards; • Oregon TMDL rule ; • State and EPA NPS and stormwater pollution control rules; • Oregon Forest Practices Act; • Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; • Oregon Agricultural Water Quality Act; • Oregon State Land Use Planning Program, specifically Goal 5 (protection of

riparian and wetlands) and Goal 6 (protection of air, water and land resources); and

• Oregon Groundwater Quality Protection rules.


7

Non-Regulatory NPS Programs Oregon’s Nonpoint Source Control Program Plan, October 2000, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/plan.htm identifies the pollution management programs, strategies, and resources that are currently in place or that are needed to minimize or prevent nonpoint source pollution effects. DEQ has the responsibility of overseeing and implementing the States NPS Management Program by coordinating with many local, state, and federal agencies and organizations throughout the State of Oregon. The NPS Management Plan represents the unified effort of many agencies and individuals to outline the various pollution control strategies that are currently taking place or are proposed for future implementation. In addition, category goals and implementation milestones are described for each of the eight EPA designated NPS pollution categories. Since its inception, Oregon’s NPS Program has supported and promoted the collaborative efforts of state, federal, and local agencies as well as private organizations in order to achieve NPS goals. The State of Oregon is committed to implementing an environmentally sensitive program that focuses on the attainment of water quality goals by using a balanced approach of education, research, technical assistance, financial incentives, and regulation. These programs include the management or regulation of forestry, agriculture, grazing, transportation, recreation, hydromodification, marinas, urban development, land use planning, fish and wildlife habitat, riparian and wetlands protection/restoration, public education, water resources, and other activities that affect the quality of the state’s waters.

319-Funded Project Nestucca Bend (Post Planting Photo)

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/plan.htm�


8

Program Directions and Priorities in 2009 DEQ continues to implement the NPS Program and direct funding into basins impaired by NPS pollution. In addition, DEQ is continuing to work toward implementation of the watershed approach, which would incorporate the use of the EPA’s key watershed planning components with the nine key NPS elements. This includes continued improvement in coordination between the various DEQ Water Quality Programs including NPS, TMDLs, Integrated Report, Source Water Protection, Groundwater, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, and 319 Project Grants. In addition, DEQ has been working with staff from the Oregon Water Enhancement Board (OWEB), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and other funding entities to prioritize and coordinate our efforts to address nonpoint sources of pollution. In addition, development of an Oregon Watershed Approach that would integrate TMDL Implementation Plan requirements (Oregon TMDL Rule, OAR 340-042-0025); EPA’s Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS elements; and drinking water protection program elements is planned. However, one of the major impediments to reducing pollutants from nonpoint sources is that federal funding of the state’s Nonpoint Source Program has been at the same level for several years. Prioritization of NPS Activities in 2009 Prioritization of program activities is important to best use our limited resources for reducing NPS pollution and improving water quality. In addition, recommendations from a long-term water quality program planning effort were used to help prioritize work.

a. Actions that are measurable and achievable – clear environmental result.

The following criteria were used to prioritize activities for 2009:

b. Actions that act as a catalyst to move the NPS Program forward.

c. Actions that can guide other program efforts such as setting policy or developing tools.

d. Actions that enable the program to leverage internal and external resources.

e. Actions that invest in and or develop political will and community support.

f. Actions that develop an internal process to increase efficiency and consistency.

g. Actions that include an ongoing assessment of monitoring and particularly 319 funding for projects that include monitoring.

This prioritization process focused DEQ’s NPS efforts in 2009 on agricultural, federal, state, and private forestry land use activities, and the Oregon Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP).


9

4. Nonpoint Source Activities and Accomplishments in 2009

Programmatic - NPS Management and Administration

Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) A portion of DEQ’s nonpoint source program activities are funded through the EPA and DEQ Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA). This funding used in waters impaired by NPS pollution supports program management, administration, TMDL development and implementation, mainstem Columbia water quality management, and agency coordination. These funds support approximately 11 positions within DEQ that were involved in the following programs/projects:

• Develop TMDLs for the Klamath and Lost River; Wallowa, Imnaha, and Lower Grande Ronde; Malheur; John Day; and Mid-Coast Basins.

• Implement TMDLs for NPS in subbasins where TMDLs/WQMPs have been completed, such as the Willamette River and Columbia River Basins.

• Implement the Willamette Mercury TMDL (Phase I) using DEQ’s Mercury Reduction Strategy and mercury source characterization work to help identify priorities and strategies.

• Implement strategies for GWMA’s with established Action Plans.

• Review and update Oregon’s 319 grant guidelines to include EPA’s Key Watershed Planning components with NPS Guidance 9 key points’ criteria.

• Distribute 319 grants to fund project proposals in Oregon’s priority basins based on TMDL development and implementation, and GWMAs.

• 319-Grant Administration.

• Prepare an annual report of NPS program accomplishments.

• Determine with EPA available NPS Environmental Progress Stories documenting either water quality progress or partial/full restoration under EPA’s Program Activity Measures (PAMs).

• Enter GRTS 319 project tracking data by national deadlines, including pollutant load reductions, as available.

• DEQ coordination with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on the Oregon Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP).

• DEQ coordination with state and federal natural resource managers on meeting water quality goals and objectives.

The following table is a compilation and summary of elements 2 and 8 sections from the actual 2008-2010 PPG workplan.


10

Table 1. 2008-2010 Performance Partnership Agreement NPS and 319-Funded Related Water Quality Component.

2008-2010 Performance Partnership Agreement NPS and 319-Funded Related Water Quality Component

DEQ Commitment Outputs

Element 2: TMDLS

2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Plans

DEQ staff actively implement TMDLs by: • Revising industrial and municipal wastewater permits to

incorporate revised permit limits. • Working with local communities and the Oregon

Department of Agriculture through the SB 1010 process to implement the TMDLs effectively on agricultural lands.

• Working with the Oregon Department of Forestry, for implementation on state and private forestlands, through the Oregon Forest Practices Act and long-range management plans.

• Assisting local governments in developing TMDL Implementation plans for urban areas.

• Working with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management on developing water quality restoration plans for lands under their jurisdiction.

DEQ has defined development of TMDLs as a High Priority Outcome for the Water Quality Division. DEQ has committed to meet the Consent Decree requiring that specific target numbers of TMDLs be completed by 2008 and by 2010. We have defined a parallel goal that, by 2008, there will be a general recognition of the importance of TMDLs and their implementation for water quality protection and restoration.

By December 31, 2008 DEQ plans to submit to EPA for approval an additional 119 TMDLs (863 TMDLs approved by EPA as of October 2, 2007) to achieve the interim milestone of 982 TMDLs contained in the Consent Decree. The TMDLs could include any of the following basins: - Rogue Basin - Klamath Basin - Molalla & Pudding Basins - Miles Creeks Basins By December 31, 2010, DEQ plans to submit to EPA for approval additional TMDLs to achieve the milestone of 1,153 TMDLs completed contained in the consent decree. The TMDLs could include any of the following basins: - John Day Basin - Malheur Basin - Wallowa County Basin - Yamhill Basin - Mid Coast - Molalla & Pudding Basins - Miles Creeks Basins


11

Table 1. 2008-2010 Performance Partnership Agreement (Cont.)

2008-2010 Performance Partnership Agreement NPS and 319-Funded Related Water Quality Component


2.3 Implement the Willamette River Basin TMDL. Work with watershed councils, local governments, and other DMAs to develop appropriate management practices and plans for controlling pollutants to the Willamette River.

DEQ will work with watershed councils, local governments, and other DMAs to develop Implementation plans throughout Willamette Basin that guide management practices, pollutant controls to meet load allocations in TMDLs. Facilitate projects that result in improvements in water quality.

Completed Implementation plans throughout Willamette Basin that guide management practices, pollutant controls to meet load allocations in TMDLs. Facilitate projects that result in improvements in water quality.

2.4 Implement the Willamette Mercury TMDL (Phase I) using DEQ’s Mercury Reduction Strategy and mercury source characterization work to help identify priorities and strategies. Work with stakeholders to identify sources and implement strategies to reduce the use of mercury and increase the amount of mercury that is safely managed or disposed.

Complete characterization of mercury sources in Willamette basin and data required for final monitoring.

Ongoing. This work is dependent upon award of competitive Extramural Funding for mercury analysis and mercury minimization planning.

2.5 Implement TMDLs for Nonpoint Sources in subbasins where TMDLs/WQMPs have been completed.

Completed Implementation plans that guide management practices, pollutant controls to meet load allocations in TMDLs. Facilitate projects that result in improvements in water quality.

DEQ is on track to meet the Consent Decree number of TMDLs required to be completed by the end of 2010. Ongoing. DEQ is encouraging DMAs to submit TMDL implementation plans that will be reviewed by DEQ.


12

Table 1. 2008-2010 Performance Partnership Agreement (Cont.)

2008-2010 Performance Partnership Agreement NPS and 319 Funded Related Water Quality Components


Element 8: Management of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

8.1 Review and update Oregon’s 319 grant guidelines to include EPA’s NPS 9 points guidance. Distribute 319 grants to fund project proposals to Oregon’s priority basins based on TMDL development and implementation, and GWMAs. Work with EPA to review basins plans containing EPA's 9-point guidance.

DEQ’s NPS program also includes staff, which performs the following activities:

• Characterization of NPS problems/concerns.

• Monitoring to support and determine effectiveness of BMP programs.

• BMPs development/implementation. • Coordination between stakeholders. • Liaison support staff to other state and

federal agencies. • Restoration activities. • Development and modeling for NPS

TMDLs. • Development of UAA/SSC as related to

NPS activities; and • Public education. • Solicit and select projects.

Funding criteria used to prioritize proposals. DEQ continues to develop watershed approach, TMDL implementation, and integration of EPA’s NPS 9 points guidance into watershed implementation plans.

DEQ has implemented a coordinated approach between 319, nonpoint source, and TMDL implementation to address critical water quality needs.

8.2 Prepare an annual report of NPS program accomplishments.

2009 NPS Annual Report Place on website. The 2008 Annual Report was submitted by DEQ and approved by EPA. The report is on DEQ’s website.

8.3 (08-10) Determine with EPA available NPS Success Stories documenting either water quality progress or partial/full restoration under PAM

Provide assistance in development of NPS Success Stories.

All stories on EPA website, stories documenting partial or full attainment count towards WQ-10.

8.4 (08-10) Enter GRTS 319 project tracking data by national deadlines, including load reductions as available

Data reflecting progress and status of 319 implementation

In progress. 2/09, 2/10 load reduction, 4/09, 4/10


13

Use of Incremental vs. Base Funds Oregon's total 2009 319-Grant allocation of $2,675,700 was distributed as follows: $1,387,400 or 52% was directed to the 319 projects grant (in addition to $299,709 in previous year carry-over funds) and the remainder, $1,288,300 or 48%, was directed to the PPA grant to fund staff efforts under the NPS program. Table 2. 2009 Oregon’s 319 Grant Incremental and Base Funds Use

2009 OREGON’S 319 GRANT INCREMENTAL AND BASE FUNDS USE

Fund Dollar Amount Use

Base Funds $1,288,300 11 DEQ Staff Positions

Incremental Funds $1,387,400 35 Projects

TOTAL $2,675,700 -- Base Funds Oregon’s “base funds” supports approximately 11 positions within DEQ on the following programs:

• TMDL Development.

• TMDL Implementation.

• Update Oregon’s 319 Grant Guidelines.

• Distribute 319 Grants For Projects.

• 319-Grant Administration and GRTS reporting of 319 activities.

• Annual NPS Report.

• NPS Success Stories.

• NPS Load Reductions.

• Columbia Water Quality Management.

• Oregon Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP).

• State and Federal Coordination. DEQ’s use of the "base" 319 funds meets EPA’s guidelines in supporting state 319 programs and projects. States may use the base funds for the full range of activities addressed in their approved nonpoint source management programs. EPA allows states to use up to 20% of the base funds to develop NPS TMDLs (consistent with their TMDL development schedule) and watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans in the absence of or prior to completion of TMDLs


14

(incorporating the TMDL's load allocations once it has been completed and approved); develop watershed-based plans that focus on the protection of threatened waters, source water, or other high-priority unimpaired waters; and conduct other NPS monitoring and program assessment/development activities. (Monitoring the results of implementing a watershed project is not subject to this 20% limitation.) Incremental Funds In 2009, 319-Grant "incremental funds” funded 35 projects as follows:

• TMDL Implementation (41%)

• Watershed Improvement (16%)

• Pesticide Stewardship (16%)

• GWMA Plan Implementation (14%)

• BMP Implementation (11%)

• Information and Education (2%) Incremental funds are restricted, per EPA’s 319 guidance, but are principally to be used to develop and implement watershed-based plans that address nonpoint source impairments in watersheds that contain Section 303(d)-listed waters. States may use up to 20% of incremental funds to develop NPS TMDLs, watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs, and watershed-based plans in the absence of or prior to completion of TMDLs in Section 303(d)-listed waters (incorporating the TMDL's load allocations once it has been completed and approved). EPA Region 10 has included in the past few annual grant issuance letters, a condition that Oregon begin developing watershed-based plans that includes EPA’s Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS elements. DEQ in 2009, in response to EPA’s request, began developing an Oregon Watershed Approach. The plan would integrate TMDL Implementation Plan requirements (Oregon TMDL Rule, OAR 340-042-0025), EPA’s Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS elements (Table 14), and drinking water protection program elements. DEQ plans to eventually develop watershed-based plans, where feasible, for future/ongoing implementation.


15

Project Implementation (2009 Activities)

Programs

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) TMDLs describe the amount of pollutant a waterway can receive and not violate water quality standards. TMDLs take into account the pollution from all sources, including discharges from industry and sewage treatment facilities; runoff from farms, forests and urban areas; and natural sources such as decaying organic matter or nutrients in soil. TMDLs include a safety margin for uncertainty and growth that allows for future discharges to a river or stream without exceeding water quality standards. DEQ develops TMDLs on a watershed basis and attempts to address all 303(d) listed pollutants for that watershed. Federal law requires that streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries that appear on the 303(d) list have a TMDL developed in order to meet state water quality standards. In most cases, rivers and streams receive discharges from both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. DEQ is committed to having 1,153 federally approved TMDLs by the end of 2010.

1. Review existing data and monitor to determine the type and amount of pollutants that are causing water quality problems. The review and monitoring attempts to determine how much of the pollution comes from point sources, nonpoint pollution, such as surface runoff, and naturally occurring.

TMDLS are Developed Using the Following General Process:

2. Use techniques such as computer modeling to determine what effect the pollution is having on the stream or river and how much of the pollutant can be discharged without exceeding water quality standards.

3. Use this information to establish permit limits on the amount of pollutant each pipe can discharge and limits on nonpoint sources that are controlled through TMDL Implementation Plans.

DEQ Issued TMDLs for 2009:

No TMDLs were issued by DEQ in 2009. DEQ expects to issue TMDLs for the Klamath and Lost River; Wallowa, Imnaha, and Lower Grande Ronde; Malheur; John Day; and Mid-Coast Basins to meet the “Consent Decree” deadline of 1,153 TMDLs by December 31, 2010.

EPA Approved TMDLs for 2009:

The following table outlines the one TMDL approved by EPA in 2009.


16

Table 3. Oregon TMDLs Approved by EPA in 2009.

Oregon TMDLs Approved by EPA for 2009

Waterbody (Basin)

Water Quality Concern

Addressed TMDL

Parameters USEPA

Approval Date

Completed TMDL

Segments by Basin

Completed TMDL

Segments (cumulative)

Miles Creeks (Middle Columbia-

Hood) Temperature Temperature 02/05/2009 15 1013

319-Funded Project

Upper Crabtree Creek – Alex Property: Planting


17

TMDL Implementation Process Timeline for the TMDL issued by DEQ in 2009:

Within 20 days after the TMDL is issued as an EQC Order, DEQ sends notification letters to all DMAs that outline the following requirements:

Table 4. TMDL Implementation Requirements to DMAs.

Requirement Timeline Expectations

DMAs develop/submit Implementation Plans to DEQ.

18 months, as indicated in the WQMP and DEQ notification letter.

TMDL Implementation Plans should be developed based on the TMDL Implementation Plan Guidance http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/TMDLs.htm.

DEQ acknowledgement, review, and approval of submitted TMDL Implementation Plans.

Review and approval within 30-60 days after receiving the plan.1

DEQ will provide feedback on the TMDL Implementation Plan and inform the submitter if your plan has been approved. DEQ will also provide specific recommendations if your plan is not adequate.

DMAs undertake actions to implement their plans.

As described in plan.

This could include continuation of existing actions, developing new ordinances, enforcement, outreach and education efforts, etc.

DMAs submit annual status reports.

Due date will be based on date plan was approved.2

This could be a summary of an annual status review with DEQ and/or a brief written statement of status of actions taken.

DMA reviews and revises the plan if data or other information indicates the plan is not adequate to achieve pollution reduction goals.

As necessary. Adaptive management through review and revision results in pollution reduction.

DMA submits five-year evaluation.

Serves as the Fifth Annual Report.

Written evaluation of effectiveness of plan relative to pollutant reduction goals as can be demonstrated by existing data and/or qualitative reports (i.e., does not require data collection), and description of changes that will be made if necessary.

DMA and DEQ collaborate on plan Review and Revision.

Following DEQ’s reevaluation of a TMDL. Per guidelines in web site information.

1. If DEQ is unable to complete within this period, DEQ will acknowledge receipt of plan, and clarify the date when DEQ will complete review. 2. The precise date will be one mutually agreeable to DEQ and the DMA and can coincide with other reporting dates to DEQ, such as in MS4 or other permits.


18

Designated Management Agencies (DMAs) for Each TMDL Issued in 2009:

No TMDLs were completed by DEQ in 2009. New Water Quality Standards

Every three years, Oregon is required to review and revise its water quality standards and submit any new or revised standard to EPA for review and approval. The Oregon water quality standards, including the narrative and numeric criteria, are in Chapter 340, Division 41 of the Oregon Administrative Rules.

Introduction

In May of 2004, the EQC adopted new water quality criteria for over 150 toxic pollutants and submitted these criteria to the EPA for approval. These criteria are not yet effective for CWA purposes because they have not been approved by EPA. In February of 2005, DEQ began using those new criteria that are more stringent than the previous criteria for NPDES permitting.

Toxic Chemicals

On October 23, 2008, the EQC gave DEQ unanimous approval to pursue rule revisions that will set new water quality standards for toxic pollutants in Oregon. The new standards will be based on a new fish consumption rate that is much more protective of human health than the existing rate. In addition, DEQ is reviewing the criteria for three naturally occurring earth metals: arsenic, iron, and manganese. During 2009, DEQ began the rulemaking process and expects to be ready for EQC adoption of revised criteria by late 2010. The new standards would go into effect following approval by EPA.

Fish Consumption Rates in Human Health Criteria Oregon’s 2004 numeric human health criteria are based on EPA’s recommended CWA Section 304(a) Water Quality Criteria guidance values. One of the exposure parameters used in calculating the criteria is the amount of fish that people consume. EPA’s current recommended CWA Section 304(a) Water Quality Criteria guidance values are calculated using the national fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day. The choice of the fish consumption rate used in deriving human health criteria is a risk management decision. The risk management decision specifically considers the population to protect in the human health criteria: the general population, tribal populations, other sensitive populations (e.g. women and children), etc. DEQ is in the process of revising Oregon’s human health criteria based on a fish consumption rate of 175 g/d (or about 23 fishmeals per month). Studies show that the Northwest Tribes eat substantially more fish than the national average. An increase in the fish consumption rate will result in more stringent human health criteria. DEQ, during 2009, began a rulemaking process and expects to be ready for EQC adoption of revised criteria by late 2010.


19

Turbidity In late 2009, DEQ resumed review of the state’s turbidity standard. This review is expected to be completed by mid-2011. Sedimentation During 2008 and 2009, DEQ convened an internal Sediment Work Group to work on strategies for implementing our narrative criterion regarding sedimentation. The group includes DEQ staff from Headquarters and Regional offices. The following tasks were completed during 2009:

• Under EPA contract, the consulting group Tetra Tech, Inc. completed a technical analysis of physical habitat and biological data and developed a set of sediment indicators and potential benchmarks for Oregon.

• The work group considered the analysis, developed an approach, and selected potential benchmarks that could be used for 305b/303d purposes.

• DEQ asked the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) for peer review of the approach and benchmarks. DEQ staff briefed the IMST on October 1, 2009 and formally requested their review. The IMST agreed to review the approach and to provide comments back by January 15, 2010.

• Discussion and decisions are pending. Cross Program Efforts to Address Toxic Chemicals DEQ Toxics Reduction Strategy DEQ has adopted a comprehensive, integrated approach to address toxic pollutants in the environment. An integrated approach is essential because these pollutants readily transfer from one environmental media to another (e.g., mercury can be released to the air, deposit on the land, and run off to the water). DEQ's cross-media toxics reduction strategy will help ensure that DEQ is addressing the problem of toxics in the environment in the most effective and efficient way. The objectives of this strategy are to:

1. Optimize agency resources by focusing on the highest priority pollutants in a coordinated way.

2. Implement actions that reduce toxic pollutants at the source.

3. Establish partnerships with other agencies and organizations to increase the effective use of public and private resources.

4. Use environmental outcome metrics to measure the effectiveness of strategy implementation where feasible.

DEQ formed an external stakeholder group to help complete a draft of the strategy. The draft strategy will then be shared broadly to gather input from the public on the recommended actions. A draft DEQ Priority Toxics Focus List (available at http://www.deq.state.or.us/toxics/docs/DraftToxicsFocusList.pdf) was released by DEQ on July 27, 2009. The final draft Strategy will be presented to the EQC for approval. Currently, the goal is to complete the draft Strategy by late summer 2010.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/toxics/docs/DraftToxicsFocusList.pdf�


20

Senate Bill 737: Development of a Priority Persistent Pollutant (P3) List for Oregon The 2007 Oregon Legislature directed DEQ to compile a prioritized list of persistent pollutants (the P3 List) to guide DEQ’s pollution prevention efforts. Senate Bill 737 (SB 737) sets specific guidelines for DEQ to follow in compiling this list. The statute requires DEQ to present a list of priority persistent pollutants to the Legislature by June 1, 2009. An Interim Final P3 List was submitted to the Legislature at that time, and a final P3 List was submitted in October 2009. DEQ’s Final P3 List identifies 118 toxic pollutants, divided into two categories (available at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/SB737/index.htm). By June 1, 2010, DEQ will submit a report to the Legislature identifying sources of pollutants on the list and opportunities to reduce their discharge to water. Oregon's 52 large municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) must also develop persistent pollutant reduction plans by July 2011 to reduce persistent pollutants occurring in their effluent at levels above “trigger levels” set by DEQ. These WWTPs have funded this work for two years, and continue to be closely involved. Pesticide Management

Pesticides Stewardship Partnerships (PSPs) Since 1999, DEQ has been using a voluntary, collaborative approach called PSPs to identify problems and improve water quality associated with pesticide use. The PSP approach uses local expertise in combination with water quality sampling and DEQ’s toxicology expertise to encourage and support voluntary changes that cause measurable environmental improvements. The key elements of the PSP approach include:

• Use stream monitoring to identify local, pesticide-related water quality concerns,

• Share results early and often with partners in the watershed,

• Explain data in terms of the effects of pesticides on the health of streams,

• Engage the agricultural community and other pesticide user groups in identifying and implementing solutions, and

• Use ongoing effectiveness monitoring to measure success and provide feedback to support water quality management.

Due to state budget cuts, DEQ was not able to secure permanent funding for the PSP program. However, 319 funds are used to continue monitoring to measure success and provide feedback to support water quality management in the PSP basins. Although pesticide levels in streams fluctuate from year-to-year, monitoring in the Hood River watershed still shows that concentrations of toxic organophosphate insecticides generally remain below state water quality standards. Most recently, significant pesticide reductions were observed between 2006 and 2007 in Walla Walla River tributaries near Milton-Freewater after the OSU Extension Service and tree fruit growers worked together on training programs and implementation of a

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/SB737/index.htm�


21

range of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Results for 2009 appear to show even further reductions in the frequency and concentrations of organophosphate insecticides in the Walla Walla tributaries. In addition to continuing PSP projects in the Hood and Walla Walla watersheds, DEQ has secured additional grant funds to re-start the Mill Creek PSP project near the city of The Dalles, based on strong local interest. DEQ also continued PSP work with partners in three other watersheds in the north Willamette Valley: Clackamas, Pudding, and Yamhill River Basins. The multitude of different agricultural commodity groups in the Willamette Valley, as well as forestry and urban land uses, creates a major challenge for DEQ and its partners in achieving short-term improvements in water quality related to pesticide use. However, new and expanded partnership efforts in Yamhill and Pudding basins will be important for reducing in-stream pesticide concentrations and improving water quality. DEQ has tentatively secured adequate funds (EPA 319 grant funds) to support the continuation of existing PSP projects, as well as the proposed expansion of the Yamhill project, through 2010 and part of 2011. Water Quality Pesticide Management Team The Water Quality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT) is an inter-agency team composed of representatives from Oregon DEQ, ODA, Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS), and ODF. The WQPMT was formed to coordinate, communicate, support, and facilitate cooperative water quality protection programs, within the four agencies, related to pesticides in the State of Oregon. ODA is the lead coordinating agency under the EPA - ODA Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program supports this team approach and the implementation of the PMP in Oregon. The major goals of the WQPMT are to:

• Develop and implement a statewide Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) by coordinating

resources across the agencies, and

• Facilitate efforts of local watershed agencies and interested organizations to prevent and/or reduce pesticide contamination in Oregon surface or groundwaters.

Accomplishments and Highlights during 2009: • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), formalizing the establishment of the WQPMT

and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the member agencies, was finalized, approved, and passed to the cooperating Agency Director's for their signatures. Signed by agency directors during the first week of 2010.

• Held 10 monthly meetings during 2009.


22

• The Oregon Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) was reviewed by EPA and returned with comments to the WQPMT in August 2009 for upgrades. Comments and refinement by the WQPMT are pending.

• Launched WQPMT/pesticide water quality website on the ODA website.

• Ongoing coordination between the WQPMT (as a key stakeholder) and the DEQ program for establishing Priority Persistent Pollutants aquatic-life and human health trigger levels under SB-737. This should have a direct impact on our efforts to establish benchmarks that can be used to evaluate pesticide-monitoring data within the "Response Matrix".

• Established a Pesticide of Interest (POI) and Pesticide of Concern (POC) ranking system based on the inclusion of these pesticides on other lists (e.g. Salmon Safe) and environmental-fate risk factors.

• Reviewed and selected new Oregon POIs and POCs for 2009-2010.

• ODA, Natural Resources Division (NRD) water quality staff incorporated pesticide-related tasks (e.g. monitoring, outreach, coordination with PSPs, etc.) into SWCD scope of work contracts.

• Provided letters of support for various grant proposals from OSU and SWCDs.

• Coordinated the improvement of buffer language for new Special Local Needs (SLN/24(c)) labels providing added protection of water bodies.

• Coordinated activities with the Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships (PSPs).

• Provided support for various pesticide water monitoring programs by the Clackamas and Marion County SWCDs.

• Initiated discussions to help coordinate future pesticide monitoring efforts by DEQ and other local stakeholders.

• Numerous presentations to pesticide applicators, water basin personnel, and growers regarding the WQPMT and issues we all face around the potential impact of pesticide use on the State's water quality.

• Support for and active input to DEQ's Toxics Reduction Strategy.

• Representation on the EPA Region 10 Water Quality Team and advancement of the WQPMT's efforts.

• Continued communication among team members regarding changes in (1) pesticide label language on buffer requirements, (2) the impact of the NMFS rulings and EPA's actions on new use requirements for three OP insecticides (chlorpyrifos, malathion and Diazinon,) and (3) possible impacts of new NPDES permitting requirements for aquatic herbicides and mosquito abatement insecticides.

Challenges and Activities for 2010:

• Further refinement of the PMP (adaptive management process) and submission to EPA

for final approval.

• Coordination of state agencies in implementing the PMP. o Coordination of state agencies and local partners.


23

o Refinement and communication of the PMP.

o Coordination and support of monitoring efforts.

o WQPMT assessment of monitoring data and responsive decision-making.

o Improvement of data management issues.

• Minimize duplicate work by coordinating with TMDL, PSP, and other implementation and monitoring efforts.

• Watershed vulnerability assessments and prioritization.

• Continued outreach, communication, and maintenance of interest/resources on pesticide impacts on water quality.

• Actively engage in EPA's effort to integrate OPP and OW program efforts around benchmarks.

• Coordination with various DEQ toxics programs: Oregon Toxics Reduction Strategy, Toxics Standards/Rulemaking Review, SB737, Willamette Toxics Monitoring, etc.

• Work with ODA NRD water quality staff to increase incorporation of pesticide-related tasks (e.g. monitoring, outreach, coordination with PSPs, etc.) into SWCD scope of work contracts where prompted by water quality data, watershed vulnerability assessments, or other information.

• Continue to maintain and build communication between each agency's water quality programs and key stakeholders.

• Initiate “Knowledge Mapping” effort for key stakeholders, their expertise, etc.

Clean Water State Revolving Fund In its commitment to support the funding of NPS projects, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program continues to evaluate both point source and nonpoint source projects on the merits of their water quality benefits rather than focusing heavily on compliance issues which in the past favored wastewater treatment projects. The number of NPS projects funded by the loan program continues to grow. In 2009, four additional loans were made: two of these address onsite sewage systems replacements, the other two fund irrigation projects. Clackamas County Sewer District #1 and the City of Milwaukie received loans to jointly-build sanitary sewer collector sewers to replace failing septic systems and cesspools that have contributed to elevated bacterial contamination in Johnson Creek, a tributary of the lower Willamette. These loans were funded with $4 million each of federal stimulus funds. Two NPS loans were made to the Three Sister’s Irrigation District in Sisters. The first loan for $465,000 in stimulus funds is being used to pipe a conveyance canal to address water loss due to ground seepage and evaporation. The second loan to the District is a $2 million loan being used to pipe the district’s main canal that irrigates 8,000 acres. When complete, the more efficient pipeline will restore 6 feet per second of instream flow to Whychus Creek.


24

The “sponsorship option” loan, which allows a water restoration project to be funded in conjunction with a traditional wastewater project - at a reduced interest rate -, continues to be available for public agencies. This loan is an excellent avenue to fund NPS projects when the project can be paired with the needs of a municipality and then be paid over time with sewer revenues. From January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009, the CWSRF Program has provided $29,144,419 towards NPS water quality improvements. The CWSRF program continues to promote its low interest loans as a tool to address NPS needs. DEQ anticipates an increasing number of NPS loans will be made annually through the CWSRF program’s traditional loan, its local community loan, or sponsorship option loan. In 2009, the following was accomplished:

1. $9,656,650 of CWSRF loans funded NPS projects in Oregon.


25

Table 5. 2009 State Revolving Fund Activity on Nonpoint Source Projects.

STATE REVOLVING FUND ACTIVITY ON NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS

2009

SRF Loan # Watershed Project Title FY SRF

Borrower Loan Amount Disbursements To Date

Remaining to Disburse

Project Status

Project Officer

Project Completion

R-65580 LOWER

WILLAMETTE / KELLOGG

CREEK

New Sewers to replace

onsite systems

2009 City of Milwaukie $3,610,150 $0 $3,610,150 Not

Started Richard Santner Sep. 2009

R-06914 UPPER

DESCHUTES WATERSHED

Irrigation Pipeline 2009 Three Sisters

Irrigation Dist. $465,000 $0 $465,000 Not Started

Manette Simpson Sep. 2010

R-06224 LOWER

WILLAMETTE / KELLOGG

CREEK

New Sewers to replace

onsite systems

2009 Clackamas

County Sewer Dist.

$4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 Not Started

Manette Simpson Nov. 2010

R-91410 UPPER

DESCHUTES WATERSHED

Irrigation Pipeline 2009 Three Sisters

Irrigation Dist. $2,000,000 S0 $2,000,000 Not Started

Shanna Olson Sep. 2010

TOTAL

$9,656,650 $0 $9,656,650


26

319-Funded Project Zweifel Property on the Kilchis River

(Before)

319-Funded Project Zweifel Property on the Kilchis River

(After)


27

Drinking Water Protection in Oregon

Approximately 75% of Oregon’s citizens get their drinking water from public water systems. The goal of having a healthy source water area is accomplished through "drinking water protection" efforts. Mandated by the 1996 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Source Water Assessments must be done for all systems that have at least 15 hookups, or serve more than 25 people year-round. These assessments include identification of risk associated with the land management activities in the source water areas. Refer to ODEQ’s drinking water website for more information, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/dwp.htm. Small Systems Report Sediment delivery could be increased from the effects of large storm events and/or forestry activities on drinking water systems in small communities who rely on Coast Range forests for clean water. The turbidity and case study report should be in final form in early 2010.

Ground Water Nitrate Contamination An evaluation of contamination of public drinking water systems that rely on groundwater is being conducted. The evaluation will use existing data to look at trends in nitrate concentrations as an indicator of surface activities affecting groundwater quality and catalog potential contaminant sources.

Drinking Water Protection in Oregon The data generated from the Source Water Assessments (SWA) that were performed from 2000 through 2005 continues to be of use to the NPS Program and is readily accessible by others. It is utilized to assist other DEQ programs identify priority areas for permit modifications, inspections, technical assistance and cleanup. It has been provided to several other state and federal agencies including Oregon Emergency Response System, Oregon Department of Transportation, ODF, ODA, DLCD, FS, and the BLM to facilitate incorporation of protection strategies into their respective programs. Both maps and downloadable statewide GIS shape files of drinking water source area coverages and identified potential sources of contamination are available to the public on the DEQ Drinking Water Protection website at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/dwp.htm. The drinking water source areas can also be identified (and selected as a search criteria) for both DEQ’s Facility Profiler (a location based system showing DEQ permit holders and cleanup sites) and LASAR (DEQ’s Laboratory Analytical Storage and Recovery for air and water quality monitoring data). The point and nonpoint contaminant source inventories in the drinking water protection areas provide useful information as the community or agencies evaluate the risks and prioritize protection strategies. Typical contaminant sources identified in groundwater source areas include high-density housing, septic systems, auto repair shops, gas

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/dwp.htm�

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/dwp.htm�


28

stations, irrigated crops, managed forestland, grazing animals, and transportation corridors. DEQ developed a BMPs database for the 88 most common potential contaminant sources in Oregon (available under “technical assistance” in DEQ’s DWP website). The database provides activities that range from educational outreach to regulatory approaches that public water systems or communities can take to reduce their risk. The database can be used to pull the BMPs for a public water system or geographic area from our GIS layers into a format that communities can use to choose their drinking water protection strategies for groundwater or surface water. One of the primary tasks of DWP staff has been to work directly with public water systems to collect data and document water quality issues associated with nonpoint sources, especially turbidity. There are approximately 15 systems that have chronic problems with high turbidity levels. Several systems are impacted so severely that the intake must be shut down periodically due to extremely high turbid water. Research and assessment to date has included collection of raw water data, interviews with operators, GIS research on land uses, and field inspections. A draft report should be available in early 2010.

Examples of Nonpoint Source Coordination DEQ’s drinking water protection program is actively recommending “Smart Growth” as a tool for protecting drinking water - part of focused or regional efforts to achieve water resource management, conservation, and other local water quality goals. Several outreach efforts, including periodic Bulletins and direct mailings have been provided to public water system officials across the state to raise the awareness of the need to become involved in land use planning and new development proposals within their drinking water source areas. When new developments are proposed that may impact public water systems, we recommend local communities communicate their concerns about drinking water protection to regional or county planning agencies. Many planning officials do not know about the source areas that supply local drinking water, even though they are generally supportive and recognize the importance of incorporating water quality protection measures into new construction. We provide maps and GIS layers of the drinking water source areas to communities and counties to help identify the sensitive areas to protect. The actual tools used for drinking water protection can vary according to local conditions and needs, often bundled together into what is referred to as “Low Impact Development (LID)”. DEQ and DHS has recently provided input to ten cities and counties that are reviewing their land use plans under Oregon’s comprehensive land use planning process (“Periodic Review”). The letters to communities included detailed information regarding their water sources, maps of the source areas, and specific recommendations and guidance for drinking water protection. As part of DEQ and DHS’ ongoing participation in periodic reviews, we anticipate continuing to review and comment on an average of


29

5-6 per year. Many of these comprehensive land use plans directly address nonpoint source issues in their drinking water source areas. DEQ continues to work with other state and federal agencies to raise the profile of the need for drinking water protection in Oregon, including the ODA, ODF, the EPA, USDA NRCS, FS, and the BLM. SWA data has also been provided to several other state agencies to facilitate incorporation of protection strategies into their respective programs.

319-Funded Project The Children’s Clean Water Festival (Tillamook)


30

A number of communities and public water systems are currently working to develop plans to protect their drinking water source area. The plan completed by Junction City with assistance from the Lane Council of Governments was one of the first plans certified by DEQ and is an example of a successful collaborative approach taken by the community (available on-line at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/DWPPlanJC.pdf ). The communities of Fairview, Gresham, and Portland have also developed a comprehensive drinking water protection plan in the Columbia South Shore Wellfield to incorporate the information from their groundwater sources; details are available online at http://www.water.ci.portland.or.us/groundwater/wellheadpro.htm. In 2008, DEQ initiated a “Drinking Water Source Monitoring” project that included collecting groundwater and surface water samples from 13 high-risk sources as identified through the SWA. DEQ Laboratory staff collected the samples above the surface water intakes and at wells for analysis of a list of Oregon-specific herbicides, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, VOCs (including cleaners), fire retardants, PAHs, and plasticizers. The purpose of the Source Monitoring was to collect data from multiple contaminant sources to assist in determining priorities for technical assistance and prevention, and to collect screening level data on whether there are potential human health risks beyond those routinely monitored with the SDWA regulations. The results of the sampling show that low levels of contaminants are in most source waters - including pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and personal care products. The final report with lab data will be available in early 2010 (accessible via the DEQ Drinking Water Protection website). The following tasks were completed in 2009:

1. Completed analysis of sediment delivery and turbidity to drinking water systems in small coastal communities and prepared a draft report.

2. Began an evaluation of nitrate contamination of public water systems that rely on groundwater.

3. Conducted outreach to public water systems on the benefits of ‘Smart Growth” and ‘LID”.

4. Developed a drinking water systems draft report of the results of groundwater and surface toxics sampling in 13 high-risk areas.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/DWPPlanJC.pdf�

http://www.water.ci.portland.or.us/groundwater/wellheadpro.htm�


31

Groundwater Management Areas (GWMAs) Groundwater Management Areas (GWMAs) are designated by ODEQ when groundwater in an area has elevated contaminant concentrations resulting, at least in part, from Nonpoint sources. Once the GWMA is declared, a local Groundwater Management Committee comprised of affected and interested parties is formed. The Committee then works with and advises the state agencies that are required to develop an action plan that will reduce groundwater contamination in the area. Oregon has designated three GWMAs because of elevated nitrate concentrations in groundwater. These include the Lower Umatilla Basin GWMA, the Northern Malheur County GWMA, and the Southern Willamette Valley GWMA. Each one has developed a voluntary action plan to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Southern Willamette Valley GWMA The Southern Willamette Valley has been the focus of studies for 20 years because of concerns about elevated levels of nitrate in the shallow groundwater. The nitrate contamination originates from many everyday sources, such as fertilizer, septic systems, and animal waste. In 2004, DEQ designated the Southern Willamette Valley as a Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) to help ensure that Willamette Valley groundwater could continue to provide a high quality resource for present and future use. Since then, local stakeholders have been engaged in planning to protect and improve the groundwater resource in the Southern Willamette Valley. To view the website for this project, go to http://gwma.oregonstate.edu/. A graduate student at OSU has recently conducted a survey in the Southern Willamette Valley GWMA. In order to change the way people do things, it is important to know where they get trusted information, their level of understanding and attitudes about the nitrate problem. OSU obtained a random sample of the GWMA population (which is about 22,000), and mailed out 1,000 surveys. There was a 47% response rate, which is an astonishing rate of return. The conclusion from OSU is that this issue resonates with the residents of the area. Agricultural Chemical Removal Project in the Southern Willamette Valley GWM Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), a committed partner in the Southern Willamette Valley GWMA, worked with DEQ, Oregon State University Extension Service, and the Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area Committee to host a Pesticide Collection Event, and removed more than 40,000 pounds of agricultural chemicals from Benton, Linn and Lane counties. Over 30 farmers were able to safely dispose of more than 20 tons of unwanted and unusable agricultural chemicals during this two-day event, at no cost to them.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/groundwater/lubgwma.htm�

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/groundwater/nmcgwma.htm�

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/groundwater/swvgwma.htm�

http://gwma.oregonstate.edu/�


32

319-Funded Project Agricultural Chemical Removal Project in the Southern Willamette Valley GWM

Recently, the NRCS has requested additional funds to work with the farmers in the Southern Willamette Valley (SWV) GWMA, in order to improve irrigation and fertilizer practices that have previously contributed excess nitrogen to the groundwater. This funding is expected to be granted by fall 2010. The following tasks were completed in 2009:

1. OSU graduate student survey of resident’s sources of water quality information in the SWV GWMA.

2. 319-Funded Kids Day for Conservation where ~450 children built edible aquifers.

3. Agricultural Chemical Removal project that focused on removing ~20 tons of unwanted and unusable chemicals were brought in for disposal by the growers in the SWV GWMA, protecting both surface water and groundwater. DEQ’s NPS staff provided support.

4. DEQ’s NPS staff were involved in training high school teachers through the “Oregon Environthon” (http://oregonenvirothon.org/), a hands-on environmental problem-solving competition for high school-age students in the United States. This year, Oregon chose the "Protection of Groundwater through Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Planning” (i.e., the GWMA model).

5. Completion of a survey of knowledge and attitudes of SWV GWMA residents, with a 47% response rate.

6. DEQ completed a Synoptic Sampling Event where approximately 100 additional private wells were added to the spring 2009 routine nitrate monitoring.

http://oregonenvirothon.org/�


33

7. NRCS grant request was submitted to improve farmer’s irrigation and fertilization practices.

319-Funded Project

Upper Crabtree Creek – Wolfe Property: Planting and Bank Shaping

319-Funded Project Thomas Creek – Allard Property: Fencing and Planting


34

Coastal Zone NPS Program Oregon’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) is being developed in compliance with requirements adopted as part of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). The CNPCP developed by DEQ and DLCD received conditional approval by NOAA and EPA, with the exception of three components that were conditionally approved:

1. New development, 2. Operating onsite disposal systems, and 3. Additional management measure for forestry.

In December 2009, EPA and NOAA received a “Sixty-Day Notice of Intent (NOI) to Sue” from the Washington Forest Law Center on behalf of the Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA) due to EPA and NOAA’s failure to consult NMFS and take final action on Oregon’s CNPCP. This litigation may go to court; however, DEQ is not a party to the lawsuit but could be affected by the outcome.

Monitoring and Data DEQ conducts various types of monitoring as required by the state statute and federal CWA. The Existing Monitoring Programs that Address NPS Pollution Include, But are Not Limited To:

• TMDL Development – Collect data to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed streams. The data is used for a subbasin scale cumulative effects analysis for the development of the TMDLs.

• Groundwater – Identify areas of groundwater contamination and determine trends in Groundwater Management Areas.

• Large River Ambient – Collect data for long term trending at fixed sites across the state. • Volunteer Monitoring – Improve data quality collected by third party and increases the

data accessibility for local and state assessments. • Coastal Environmental Monitoring – Collects data to determine the need for beach

advisories. • Toxics Monitoring -- Toxics Monitoring Project for surface waters in the Willamette Valley

and for drinking water throughout the State. This project will give information about current and emerging contaminants that threaten aquatic life and human health.


35

Two Monitoring Reports were completed in 2009:

1. Oregon Toxics Monitoring Program Willamette River Basin: Year One (2008) Summary Report DRAFT, September 29, 2009 (http://www.deq.state.or.us/about/eqc/agendas/attachments/2009oct/E-AttA- ToxicsMonitoring.pdf).

DEQ issued the Oregon Toxics Monitoring Program Willamette River Basin Year One (2008) Summary Report DRAFT on September 29, 2009. In 2008, DEQ initiated a long-term program to monitor surface waters for toxic pollutants. Monitoring objectives were to collect data on pollutants known to present a substantial threat to human health or aquatic life and to gather information about the occurrence of chemicals of emerging concern in the Willamette River Basin. Water samples and fish were collected from mainstem and tributary locations throughout the basin and analyzed for a wide range of organic pollutants and metals. Most of the pesticides of interest and concern identified by the pesticide management team were included on the Toxics Monitoring Program’s 2008 list of target pollutants.

2. Willamette Basin Rivers and Streams Assessment Report, December 2009

(http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/docs/WillametteBasinAssessment2009.pdf)

DEQ issued the Willamette Basin Rivers and Streams Assessment Report, in December 2009. This report was written as a resource for water quality managers, watershed councils, municipalities and citizens to help understand the status of watershed conditions in the Willamette basin. It provides a status assessment of the water quality, biological and physical habitat conditions at the basin, subbasin, and land use spatial extents. These spatial scales are ecologically relevant and useful for understanding cumulative management effects. While this report does not address all the water quality parameters listed in the Willamette basin TMDL, it does include many parameters that are useful surrogates for understanding potential loading pathways for bacteria and mercury. It also includes a variety of parameters that are not listed in the Willamette TMDL that may warrant careful consideration for future management activities

http://www.deq.state.or.us/about/eqc/agendas/attachments/2009oct/E-AttA-ToxicsMonitoring.pdf�

http://www.deq.state.or.us/about/eqc/agendas/attachments/2009oct/E-AttA-ToxicsMonitoring.pdf�

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/docs/WillametteBasinAssessment2009.pdf�


36

Land Uses

Water Quality Issues on Agricultural Lands The 2010 Integrated Report, GWMAs, TMDLs, Willamette Basin Rivers and Streams Assessment, as well as visual inspections suggest that water quality is impaired in many areas on agricultural lands. Although there is not adequate information available to determine whether water quality on agricultural lands is improving across the state, there are documented individual local successes such as establishing partnerships, implementing conservation practices, restoring riparian vegetation, and improving water quality. Water quality and habitat enhancement work on agricultural lands in the state is characterized by strong working relationships and leveraging of resources among partner agencies at the federal, state, and local level. There is an extensive history of working together to solve complex and challenging water quality, and threatened and endangered species issues. In 2009, DEQ continued its work with agencies such as the ODA, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) as well as with SWCD, watershed councils, irrigation and drainage, and nonprofit organizations to protect and restore water quality affected by agricultural lands.

Agricultural Water Quality Management Program ODA as a DMA is responsible for meeting the water quality standards and TMDL load allocations on agricultural and rural lands. The process developed in the Agricultural Water Quality Management Program (AgWQMP) is the main regulatory mechanism to prevent and control nonpoint source pollution and meet water quality standards, TMDL load allocations, and GWMA action plans affected by agricultural lands. In addition, SWCDs have contractual relationships with ODA to act as a local management agency (LMA) to meet water quality goals on agricultural lands. DEQ works with ODA’s state office as well as regionally based water quality specialists to prevent pollution and improve water quality on agricultural lands. In 2009, DEQ’s NPS program and ODA’s Water Quality Program staff and management held bimonthly coordination meetings to discuss issues related to ODA and DEQ’s water quality programs. DEQ’s basin coordinators provide input on revisions of AgWQMP plans. Moreover, as resources allowed, DEQ’s basin coordinators and ODA staff coordinate on the review and implementation of water quality programs as well as local water quality issues related to drinking water.


37

319-Funded Project

Brown Creek – Knebel Property: Fencing, Planting, and Bank Shaping (Before)

319-Funded Project Brown Creek – Knebel Property: Fencing, Planting, and Bank Shaping

(After)


38

Reporting ODA and SWCDs also produced fourteen reports in 2009 associated with Agricultural Water Quality Management Area (AgWQMA) Plan biennial reviews. The reports include updates on compliance and monitoring efforts as well as a summary of progress toward plan objectives, including targets on outreach and on the ground projects. DEQ’s regional staff provides technical assistance and coordinates with ODA’s water quality specialists to review the area plans and provide information for the reports as resources allow. The area plans as well as the reports can be found at the following link: http://egov.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/water_agplans.shtml.

Outreach and Education Summary In 2009, ODA and SWCDs used various venues to reach agricultural producers and rural land residents to promote conservation practices. The types of activities and topics are shown below. In total, ODA reached about 4,000 people through various outreach activities in 2009. SWCDs collectively made close to 22,000 contacts through their outreach efforts, with the bulk from distribution of brochures. Figure 2. ODA Water Quality Staff Outreach Activities -- 2009

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/water_agplans.shtml�


39

Figure 3. Soil and Water Conservation District – Number of Activities – 2008-2009


40

Compliance Summary for ODA ODA’s compliance program is mostly initiated by complaints by the public and other agencies. ODA has roughly two (2) FTEs allocated to the work. Sixty-two (62) new cases were initiated statewide and the majority of them were in the northwest part of the state. In 2009, ODA began initiating investigations based on observations by ODA staff after they received support by the AgWQMA Program Advisory Committee to do so. Table 6. ODA Compliance Investigations Initiated By Complaint, Staff Observation, and

Landowner Request – 1998 through 2009.

REASON FOR INITIATING COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATION NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS

Public Complaint (Includes Public Complaints Forwarded To ODA By Other Agencies/Programs)

227

ODA/Other Agency Staff Observation 196

Requested By Landowner 2 Table 7. 2009 Compliance Investigations Conducted by ODA Region.

ODA REGION NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS

Lower Willamette 23

Upper Willamette/Mid Coast 17

Southern Oregon 9

Central Oregon 6

Northeastern Oregon 2

Eastern Oregon 5

Total 2009 Water Quality Complaints 62

The majority of the complaints received by ODA are made due to polluted runoff, followed by riparian area management concerns.


41

Table 8. Types of Water Quality Concerns Identified In Complaints or During Investigations.

WATER QUALITY CONCERN NUMBER OF

COMPLAINTS 2009

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS

1998 - 2009

Potential Manure Runoff to Surface or Groundwater

21 180

Potential Sediment Runoff to Surface Water 4 118

Riparian Area Management Concerns 19 104

Other Issues 4 29

Other 468B Potential Violations 21 48 ODA takes agency actions that are formal Department decisions following a site visit to determine compliance. The number of agency actions is greater than the number of complaints for the year because the total includes follow-up visits that are often required before compliance is attained. Table 9. Total Agency Actions Taken in 2009.

AGENCY ACTIONS NUMBER

Letter of Compliance 37

Water Quality Advisory 30

Letter of Warning 29

Notice of Noncompliance 1

Civil Penalty 0

Other 9

TOTAL 106


42

Partnerships with USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) DEQ’s NPS and TMDL programs have been putting an emphasis on our coordination with the USDA NRCS in order to address agricultural issues through sharing priorities and incentives. DEQ and NRCS partnership relationships are institutionalized at various intergovernmental levels due to NRCS’s effort to promote collaboration between the various natural resource agencies and agricultural stakeholder groups:

1. At the agency headquarters level (USDA-NRCS state office, USDA-FSA state office, DEQ headquarters, OWEB, etc).

2. Oregon Technical Advisory Meetings are held quarterly to leverage each other’s resources to the greatest degree possible to address agricultural related water quality issues of common interest and to steer agency programs toward high priority water quality issues and geographic areas.

3. Through NRCS “regional working groups”, programmatic and geographic priorities are set regionally, generally, at the basin scale to allocate program funds under the Farm Bill.

4. The NRCS/SWCD “local working groups” direct technical assistance and funding to specific landowner projects that fit the priorities set via regional working groups. These groups are driven primarily by local SWCDs, often in cooperation with local Watershed Councils.

Examples of Leveraged Partnerships Including DEQ and NRCS

The following are a few examples of how partnerships leverage each other's programs:

1. NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG), Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and Projects. As a member of NRCS’ “Oregon Technical Advisory Committee”, DEQ is afforded an opportunity to review NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant and Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) Projects that are proposed for funding. Given this opportunity by NRCS, DEQ can help to assure that significant water quality issues are addressed through projects proposed by sponsors. DEQ understands that such opportunity for review is unique to Oregon, and DEQ appreciates NRCS willingness to seek broad input on proposals. DEQ’s active involvement helps ensure that projects solve high priority water quality issues. In addition, since the inception of the CREP program in Oregon, the USDA agencies (NRCS and FSA) have reached out to various agencies. DEQ assists in the design of the program so that priority water quality issues and geographic areas obtain priority funding. This helps to assure appropriate leveraging of funding sources.


43

2. Hood River and Willamette Basin Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships (PSPs) Since late 1999, DEQ has been allocating a portion of Oregon’s 319 funds to monitor and assess the presence of organophosphate pesticides in surface water in the Hood River watershed (a commercial pear growing area). Both the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and NRCS have provided funding to support continued monitoring, for NRCS’ programs, and projects for landowners that promote integrated pest management to reduce environmental loading of organophosphate pesticides. The monitoring information has been extremely useful in informing the agricultural producers about where and when pesticides are found in surface water. The produce uses this information to define and refine integrated pest management strategies. For the Willamette Basin PSP, DEQ has been allocating a portion of Oregon’s 319 funds to monitor organophosphates and other current use pesticides in three subbasins in the Willamette Basin. In 2008, NRCS awarded a Conservation Innovation Grant to the Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service to provide intensive technical assistance to landowners in parts of the Pudding and Yamhill subbasins where elevated levels of pesticides were detected under the monitoring conducted by DEQ.

3. Zollner Creek Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) Project Pursuant to an AWEP application from the Marion SWCD, NRCS is allocating $1.5 million in AWEP ($300,000 in FFY09) funding to go toward Zollner Creek, an area of intensive, diverse irrigated agriculture in the Pudding River subbasin of the Willamette Basin. Significant detections of legacy and current use pesticides in Zollner Creek has been documented by USGS (through NAWQA studies) and DEQ (through Pesticide Stewardship Partnership work). Zollner Creek is a high priority area for DEQ for water quality improvements to achieve TMDL load reductions and to address non-TMDL water quality issues. The focus of the NRCS AWEP project is to reduce water use and enhance water quality through improved irrigation practices, along with improved conservation practices. This project was selected in part due to the strong advocacy of DEQ and direct involvement in the review process.

4. Targeted 319 funds in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties DEQ awarded a portion of Oregon’s 319 funds to the Clackamas and Multnomah SWCDs to install conservation practices in targeted areas within the Lower Willamette and Clackamas subbasins to address water quality issues identified in Willamette River Basin TMDL. SWCD specialists and landowners used 319 funds as match to access funds through NRCS cost share programs, to assure that practices are installed in areas of significance to assist with TMDL load reductions.


44

Water Quality Issues on State and Private Forest Land

High Level Indicator and Land Use Monitoring ODF and DEQ finished a report of the status of water quality and biological integrity of forested lands in Oregon. The report assessed conditions of water and biological quality among differing forest uses (federal, state, private industrial and private non-industrial forests) in forestlands at the state and basin scales. The water quality data show elevated total solids and phosphorous, particularly in private ownerships. The biological data show potential aquatic life impairments from sediment and temperature. Overall, streams on forestland are in fair shape compared to other land uses, but there are indications of cause for concern. The report can be found at http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/bioreports.htm. The report reference number is DEQ09-LAB-0041-TR.

RipStream (Riparian Function and Stream Temperature) ODF’s RipStream project has been developed to provide a coordinated monitoring effort with which to evaluate effectiveness of Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules and strategies in protecting stream temperature, and promoting riparian structure that provides necessary functions for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. DEQ is participating in the RipStream project by providing analyses of data and study results in cooperation with ODF staff.

In order to meet this objective, the following questions were addressed: 1. Are the FPA riparian rules and strategies effective in meeting DEQ water quality

standards regarding anti-degradation of stream temperature and the water quality standard?

2. Are the FPA riparian rules and strategies effective in maintaining large wood recruitment to streams, downed wood in riparian areas, and shade?

3. What are the trends in riparian area regeneration?

4. What are the trends in overstory and understory riparian characteristics? How do they along with channel and valley characteristics relate to stream temperature and shade?

ODF has completed their initial analysis to test whether current riparian protections on fish-bearing streams are adequate to meet water quality standards for temperature. In this study, streams in State Forests are meeting both numeric and Protecting Cold Water (PCW) criteria of the temperature standard. However, streams on private forests are not meeting the PCW criterion. Private streams are meeting the numeric criteria, but it should be noted that the starting temperatures in these streams are far below the numeric targets. The results were presented to the BOF in September 2009, http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/September_2009/5_Att_1.pdf. In addition, results have been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/bioreports.htm�

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/September_2009/5_Att_1.pdf.%20%20In�


45

Ongoing analyses will show the absolute magnitude of temperature changes and examine what physical processes are driving those increases.

Forestland Conversions ODF, ODA, Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), Oregon DLCD, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD), and DEQ have common interests and responsibilities in protecting waters of the state and other natural resources during the conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. The Memorandum of Understanding, signed (November 2006) calls for closely coordinated efforts to insure agency coordination and minimize duplication, and to work towards common goals for a smooth transition between agencies during the conversion process. The purpose of this agreement is to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the state agencies involved during the conversion of forestland to other non-forest uses on publicly or privately owned lands, to ensure that state water quality and other resources are protected throughout the process, and to ensure a smooth transition of jurisdiction between the agencies. In addition, the MOA states that the seven state agencies will conduct training sessions to explain the forestland conversion process and to ensure communication and collaboration between the staff of each agency. The Forestland Conversions Training Workgroup, composed of representatives from the seven state agencies, organized the training sessions for all state agency staff. The first task of the workgroup was to develop and approve the forestland conversions process memo that was used to guide the training. In addition, the workgroup developed numerous handouts and PowerPoint presentations to present the training to staff. The training was conducted following a detailed agenda.


46

The following table identifies the date, area, and site locations of the training that were held:

Table 10. Forestland Conversions State Agencies Training Location and Schedule.

FORESTLAND CONVERSIONS STATE AGENCIES TRAINING LOCATION AND SCHEDULE

DATE CITY AREA LOCATION / FACILITY

Tuesday March 3, 2009 Salem Lower Willamette Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Board Meeting Room Thursday March 5, 2009 Springfield Upper Willamette Oregon Dept. of Forestry Building

Tuesday March 10, 2009

Myrtle Point South Coast OSU Extension Service Office

Wednesday March 11, 2009

Central Point Southern Oregon Oregon Dept. of Forestry Building

Wednesday March 18, 2009 Tillamook North Coast Oregon Dept. of Forestry Building

Tuesday March 24, 2009 LaGrande Northeast Oregon U.S. Forest Service Building

Wednesday March 25, 2009 Prineville Central Oregon Crook County Fire and Rescue

Building The training sessions were conducted in all areas of the state where there is forest cover. This was done because ODF land use data shows that forestland throughout the state is being converted to either urban, including rural residential, or to agriculture, including hobby farms. Even though many of the staff attending were either not aware of the conversions occurring or were not receiving clear notice from the landowners that such conversion was planned (as what the workgroup calls “Backdoor Conversions”), the sessions where helpful to educate all agency staff. The workgroup prepared an evaluation form that most participants filled-out to help guide the training sessions. This was particularly useful to the workgroup in modifying the presentations given. Not all that attended returned evaluation forms, so the total number attending all sessions is more like 75. Overall, the training sessions were well attended by most agency staff. This was particularly true on the westside of Oregon. On the eastside, there was less staff in attendance and for some agencies, either none or only a few staff attended. The training was well received. Most learned a lot from the training and found it to be informative and beneficial. Evaluations rating the session for its usefulness had an average score of four (4) on a scale of one (1) (poor) to five (5) (excellent).


47

The following tasks were completed in 2009: 1. Held seven training sessions for the seven state agencies who are signatories of the

MOA throughout the state in 2009. Dynamic Ecosystem Policy Project ODF’s Dynamic Ecosystem Policy Project purpose is to integrate the dynamic nature of ecosystem into policy frameworks. A group of scientists from the Institute for Natural Resources at OSU was funded by ODF to complete the project. DEQ has participated in project meetings to discuss meeting water quality objectives in the context of changing ecosystems and has provided information about the federal CWA and the Oregon TMDL process in addition to making comments on proposed changes to the study/literature review. The final draft is complete. In 2009, DEQ participated in four seminars based around the report and focused on aquatic ecosystems, fire ecology, climate change, and wildlife protection. Four white papers were written to summarize the seminars. In September, a policy workshop was held with citizens, scientists, industry, and agency personnel, followed by a final report. Reports and additional information are available at this website: http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/FRP/RP_Home.shtml#Dynamic_Forest_Ecosystems. Water Quality Issues on Federal Forest Lands Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee (FFAC) On January 2009, the Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee (FFAC) issued the final “Achieving Oregon’s Vision for Federal Forestland”, (http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/FFAC_Color_Report_and_Cover_for_Web.pdf). During 2009, DEQ helped the Committee implement the guidance document to ensure that water and air quality area high-ranking concern. In October 2004, the Governor directed the Oregon BOF to “create a unified vision of how federal lands should contribute” to sustainability, and to “make that vision action-oriented and comprehensive – following through to the last step, including implementation”. In 2005, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1072 into law that encourages the Board, in consultation with the Governor, to create a forum for interagency cooperation and collaborative public involvement regarding federal forest management issues. DEQ provided information to clarify how water and air quality standards and regulation apply to forestry activities. BLM Western Oregon Revised Plan (WOPR) In 2009, DEQ provided additional comments to BLM’s Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). The WOPR proposed revisions to the five and one-half Western Oregon District Resource Management Plans (RMPs). DEQ expressed concerns in response to BLM’s Riparian Management Area (RMA) Strategy contained in the final RMPs. In particular, DEQ’s concerns related to the modeling and scientific studies that supported shade (surrogate for stream temperature) and sediment analyses in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) written to support the final RMPs.

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/FRP/RP_Home.shtml#Dynamic_Forest_Ecosystems�

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/FRP/RP_Home.shtml#Dynamic_Forest_Ecosystems�

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/FFAC_Color_Report_and_Cover_for_Web.pdf�

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/FFAC_Color_Report_and_Cover_for_Web.pdf�


48

BLM, on April 21, 2009, indicated to DEQ that the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) would be used through 2009 to meet State and Federal water quality rules and regulations for current planning and activities, including timber sales, in Western Oregon. In July 2009, the BLM announced that the WOPR was being withdrawn due, in part, to federal Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act considerations. FS/BLM/DEQ MOAs Update and 5-Year Progress Report In 2002, the DEQ, the US Forest Service (FS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) outlined a process to work in a proactive, collaborative, and adaptive manner to meet State and Federal Water quality rules and regulations. The resulting agreements were signed between DEQ, the FS, and the BLM in 2002 and 2003, respectively. Both were extended in 2006 for one year. The Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) updated the previous 1990 MOAs. The FS agreement is a Memorandum of Understanding (MU) and the BLM agreement is a MOA. These memoranda require that a 5-year progress review and report on the implementation and effectiveness of the BLM MOA and the FS MU with DEQ be prepared and used as the basis for change to future agreements. The specific purposes of the 5-year progress report are to document MOA implementation and effectiveness, summarize agency accomplishments, and recommend programmatic and language changes to the expired MOAs.

The major accomplishments identified in the final draft report are:

Monitoring The FS and BLM agency records showed that about 89 percent of the plan-prescribed watershed analyses, covering an average of more than 85 percent of the federal land area for all units, were reported as completed. A preliminary assessment of watershed condition throughout the NWFP area was done for 250 watersheds as part of a NWFP 10-year assessment in 2004 (Gallo et al, 2005). Most of the monitored watersheds had higher condition scores after implementation of the NWFP than before, across the entire Plan area, and in each of the land use allocations (except nonfederal). Relatively few watersheds decreased in condition. Over 70 percent of key watersheds identified as first priority for restoration activities increased in condition. Those watersheds that had lower condition scores were all exposed to wildfire. Less than 50 percent of the non-key watersheds increased in condition.

Water Quality Restoration Plans (WQRPs) By 2009, there have been 90 WQRPs completed by the federal agencies. Out of that total, 42 WQRPs have been submitted before TMDLs have been completed. Currently BLM has land in the Molalla River subbasin that has no WQRP completed and less then18 months have elapsed since TMDL approval. The FS


49

currently has two (2) TMDLs where there is no WQRP coverage and 18 months have elapsed since TMDL approval: Sandy and Rogue River (FS). FS and BLM have 22 existing WQRPs that may need revision once TMDLs have been approved. Nine WQRPs have received DEQ comment, which need to be incorporated into the WQRP revision.

Restoration From 2003 to 2007, over $80.3 million dollars has been spent on active restoration on FS and BLM lands throughout Oregon. Over 1,600 miles of road have been improved and 484 miles have been decommissioned reducing sediment delivery and floodplain encroachment. Riparian treatment was completed on 452 miles. Instream structure has been added to over 750 miles of stream and aquatic passage projects have provided fish access to 478 miles of habitat. Upland areas have had approximately 32,000 acres treated through various methods including slope stabilization, revegetation, silvicultural treatments, or livestock exclusion fencing. Riparian areas received similar treatments on approximately 25,000 acres. Both freshwater and coastal wetland restoration occurred on 4,807 and 1,500 acres.


50

Table 11. FS and BLM Accomplishments by Basin 2003 to 2007.

FS AND BLM ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY BASIN 2003 TO 2007 (FROM IRDA)

BASIN Restoration Dollars

Roads Improved

(Miles)

Roads De-commiss-

ioned (Miles)

Riparian Treatment

(Miles)

Instream Structure

(Miles)

Instream Passage (Miles)

Wetland Fresh

(Acres)

Wetland Coastal (Acres)

Upland (Acres)

Riparian (Acres)

FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM FS/BLM Deschutes River

Basin $7.8 Million 19 70 109 64 58 472 --- 5,717 1,869

John Day River Basin $3 Million 15 40 71 3 39 20 --- 2,160 2,485

Klamath Basin $2 Million 71 27 1 --- 10 206 --- 3,476 2,386

Lower Columbia Basin

$4.28 Million 169 31 20 90 5 167 --- 11 4,346

Lower Snake Basin $3.9 Million 15 99 59 45 13 1 --- 435 1,632

Malheur Basin $4.5 Million 54 6 37 23 79 591 --- 7,696 2,474

Middle Columbia Basin $4.7 Million 123 38 19 9 5 19 --- 1,213 2,493

Middle Snake Boise Basin

$632 Thousand --- 5 25 --- 9 --- --- 1,286 3,629

Northern Oregon Coastal Basin $7.9 Million 146 28 31 62 24 --- --- --- 414

Southern Oregon Coastal Basin

$32.2 Million 492 72 56 385 199 3,326 1,500 5,067 2,569

Willamette Basin $8.9 Million 498 68 24 73 37 5 --- 5,012 929

TOTALS $80.3 Million

1,602 Miles 484 Miles 452 Miles 754 Miles 478 Miles 4,807

Acres 1,500 Acres

32,073 Acres 25,226 Acres


51

The key report findings, conclusions, and recommendations are: The new MOAs now need to evolve to focus more on implementation and monitoring of activities that lead to attainment of water quality goals and standards, and the documentation and tracking of those actions. Other key conclusions important to guide development and implementation of the new MOA follow:

1. There are tangible savings of work, such as cooperation in the completion of WQRPs leading to approval of the DMA TMDL Implementation Plans. The sharing of data, collaborating at multiple levels on use of resources for data collection and monitoring was very effective and efficient.

2. Establishing a process for joint review (both office and field) of ongoing watershed work/priorities is important, which was not carried out during the tenure of the existing MOAs. Joint review of planning and upcoming activities will assist with identifying and adjusting where feasible agency priorities, resources and funding, and facilitate development of current and future work plans. Joint review of implemented activities will provide accountability and assurances.

3. Participation and engagement of line officers and EPA throughout the implementation of the MOAs was beneficial and should be continued throughout the development and life of the new MOAs.

4. One of the primary areas, which is incomplete in the current MOAs and requires attention in the new MOAs, is the BMP process. The BLM and FS rely on the BMP process (as specified in the FS Nonpoint Source Plan) for protection, restoration, and maintenance of water quality through NEPA planning documents, aquatic conservation strategies, WQRPs, and most importantly project implementation. Implementation and effectiveness of BMPs are the legal and policy mechanism for control and management of nonpoint source pollution. This important process was not effectively documented and communicated in the past, and should receive high priority for development, reporting, tracking, and approval by DEQ.

5. The second major area needing improvement is the reporting and tracking of administrative and implemented project activities for water quality protection and improvement. This is essential to evaluate success and ensure legacy and ongoing work is accounted for and therefore not lost. This was not carried out in the current MOAs and failed to provide assurances and accountability of progress towards collective goals for water quality. This lack of documentation and tracking made it difficult to develop the 5-Year Report. This is particularly important to demonstrate that TMDL load allocations and instream water quality standards are being met.

In 2009, the following was accomplished: 1. Provided additional comments on BLM’s WOPR with its eventual withdrawal.

2. Prepared the final draft of the MOA required 5-Year Progress report that will be used to update MOAs.

3. Began revisions and update to DEQ/FS and DEQ/BLM MOA.


52

Progress of 319 Grant Funded Projects

Description of Types of 319 Nonpoint Source Projects Two primary programs provide funding for various NPS pollution and watershed enhancement projects in Oregon. One is administered by DEQ, and the other is administered by OWEB. A third program is administered by the ODA (Fertilizer Tax Fund Program), which supports research and demonstration of BMPs as it pertains to groundwater quality protection. Section 319 funds are competitively awarded to projects consistent with the Revised Oregon Nonpoint Source (NPS) Control Program Plan (2000). This plan is available for downloading or viewing on DEQ’s web site: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/plan.htm The criterion for evaluation of 319 proposals has evolved over time. This is due in part to the progress of the TMDL development/implementation work needs and other priority water quality work, such as groundwater management areas. In the recent past and for the 2009 RFP we have received an increasing number of proposals linking restoration work over time and with each other, while also addressing important water quality impairments from NPS pollution. For a more detailed description of DEQ’s geographic and programmatic priorities for 319 funded projects in 2009 as identified in the 2009 319 RFP, see the Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 319 Funding section below. Grant Performance Report Summary The progress of NPS 319 Funded (Pass-Through) Projects is identified in Table 18 in Appendix 1. The data used in the table is as of December 31, 2009. Seventy-four (74) 319-funded projects are still open; including the thirty-five (35), 2009 funded projects. Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 319 Funding Table 19, in Appendix 2, identifies DEQ’s geographic and programmatic priorities for 319 funded projects in 2009 as outlined in the 2009 319 RFP, available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/grants.htm . These priorities were used to select the 2009 319 Funded Projects. The identification of priority basins (as listed below) does not exclude the submission of proposals for work outside these basins. Exceptional project proposals for stream restoration, effectiveness monitoring, and pollutant reduction in non-priority basins will be considered. To determine how the “project need” was met by region and basin/subbasin; please refer to Table 14 for a list of the 2009 - 319 Grant Funded Projects in Response to the RFP.

2009 – 319 Funding Categories The following figure identifies the 2009 – 319 funding categories and funded amounts. The $1,686,509 total funds for 2009 includes the re-obligated funds from the funding

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/plan.htm�

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/grants.htm�


53

years 2002-04 in the amount of $299,109. The 2009 319 funded projects were funded in following six (6) categories: BMP Implementation (36%), BMP Planning (6%), Restoration (35%), Effectiveness Monitoring (10%), Information and Education (7%), and GWMA Implementation (6%). Figure 4. 2009 Funding Categories


54

2009 - 319 Grant Funded Projects The following tables identify the projects funded in response to the 2009 RFP: Table 12. 319 Projects Funded in Response to the 2009 RFP by Region and Basin/Subbasin.

OREGON 319 2009 LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY REGION AND BASIN/SUBBASIN

Project Number Project Name Region Submitted by Basin/Sub-basin

W09700 WQ and effectiveness monitoring in the Crooked R. WS ER Crooked river WSC Deschutes W09701 Willow Creek Effectiveness Monitoring ER Malheur WSC Malheur W09702 Alkali Creek Water Quality Enhancement ER Malheur SWCD Malheur W09703 Strip Tillage in Malheur and Owyhee Watersheds ER OSU ES, Malheur Co. Malheur W09704 Owyhee River Improvement Project- Phase 2 ER Malheur County SWCD Malheur W09705 City of Prineville Stormwater Pollution Reduction Plan ER City of Prineville Deschutes

W09706 LUBGWMA Action Plan Effectiveness Monitoring & Outreach ER Umatilla Co. SWCD LUB GWMA

W09707 Apple sunburn prevention using organic biofilms ER OSU AES Middle Columbia Hood

W09708 Clackamas Planting and Outreach Project NWR Clackamas River Council Clackamas

W09709 2009-10 NNWC Streamside Planting and Maintenance NWR Nestucca-Neskowin WSC Nestucca-Neskowin

W09710 North Coast Watersheds Enhancement Project NWR Sp. District Government North Coast

W09711 Pilot Scale SW Master Planning w/Ecosystem Services Approach NWR City of Damascus Lower

Will/Clackamas

W09712 Upper Nehalem Riparian Restoration and Basin WQ Monitoring NWR UNWC Nehalem

W09713 Circle Creek Enhancement Project Phase Three NWR N. C. Land Conservancy Lower Nehalem W09714 Scapoose Creek Riparian Restoration NWR Scappoose Creek WSC Scappoose Bay


55

Table 12. 319 Projects Funded in Response to the 2009 RFP by Region and Basin/Subbasin. (Cont.)


Project Number Project Name Region Submitted By Basin/Subbasin

W09715 2010 Tillamook Co Children’s Clean Water Festival NWR TEP North Coast W09716 BYPP Year 7 NWR TEP Tillamook

W09717 Tillamook SWCD 2009 Stream Enhancement & Restoration NWR Tillamook Co SWCD Tillamook

W09718 Devil's lake and D River WQ WR1 Devil's lake water Improvement Mid Coast

W09719 Coquille North Fork Drinking Water Source Protection WR1 Coquille WS Assoc South Coast

W09720 Targeted WQ Outreach to Isthmus & Coalbank Sloughs of Coos Bay WR1 Coos WS

Association South Coast

W09721 Low-Impact Development Workshops and Technical Assistance, Year 2 WR1 OEC Mid-Coast

W09722 Sucker/Kelly Creeks Comm. Ed. Outreach Project WR2 Forestry Action Committee Rogue

W09723 Coordinated Rogue B. WQ Implementation Plan Development WR2 RVCOG Rogue

W09724 Little Butte Creek WQ Enhancement Project WR2 Special SWCD (Jackson) Upper Rogue

W09725 Santiam-Calapooia Landowner Recruitment & Restoration WR3 S. Santiam WSC S. Santiam

W09726 School restoration program: restoration, design and SW management WR3 Camas Educational

Net Mid Willamette

W09727 Implementation Monitoring Of Umpqua Basin, Diamond Lake TMDL WR4 Partnership

Umpqua R. N. Umpqua

W09728 PUR Water Quality Monitoring and Thermal Refugia Investigation WR4 Partnership

Umpqua R. N. Umpqua

W09729 GW Protection Ed. to Promote Citizen Involvement in S. Willamette Valley WR5 OSU ES, Benton

County Upper Will GWMA


56

Table 12. 319 Projects Funded in Response to the 2009 RFP by Region and Basin/Subbasin. (Cont.)


Project Number Project Name Region Submitted By Basin/Subbasin

W09730 Mid Coast Basin NPS Implementation Initiative WR6 Lincoln SWCD Mid Coast

W09731 StreamBank—Willamette Basin Riparian Restoration Focus HQ/SW/WR Freshwater Trust McKenzie, Lower/Up

Willamette W09732 Pesticide Stewardship Partnership HQ/SW Various basins Mid Coast W09733 KOIN WQ Campaign HQ/SW KOIN TV Ch 6 Willamette


57

Table 13. 319 Projects Funded in Response to the 2009 RFP by Type of Project, BMPs, and Parameters of Concern.

OREGON 319 2009 PROJECTS FUNDED BY TYPE OF PROJECT, BMPS, AND PARAMETERS OF CONCERN

Project Number Project Name Type of Project BMPS Parameters of

Concern Where Budget

W09700 WQ and Effectiveness Monitoring in the Crooked R. WS

Effectiveness Monitoring Monitoring

Temperature, pH, DO, Nutrients, Bacteria

Crooked River $80,000

W09701 Willow Creek Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness Monitoring

Instream Bacteria Sampling Bacteria, Sediment L Malheur, Willow Ck,

NMCGMA $50,000

W09702 Alkali Creek Water Quality Enhancement

Wetland Creation Riparian/Stream Habitat Improvement

Bacteria, Sediment, Nutrients

Owyhee WS, Alkali Creek $35,000

W09703 Strip Tillage in Malheur and Owyhee Watersheds

TMDL Implementation

NO Till/Direct Drill/BMP Incentives Sediment L. Malheur and

Owyhee $73,565

W09704 Owyhee River Improvement Project- Phase 2


Sprinkler vs. Furrow Irrigation Nutrients, Sediment Owyhee $35,000

W09705 City of Prineville Stormwater Pollution Reduction Plan

Stormwater Plan Development BMP Developing Sediment Lower Crooked River

and Ochoco Creek $70,000

W09706 LUBGWMA Action Plan Effectiveness Monitoring & Outreach

GWMA Effectiveness Monitoring

BMP Info And Education

Nitrates In Groundwater

LUB GWMA & Critical Groundwater Area. $38,000

W09707 Apple Sunburn Prevention Using Organic Biofilms

Ag BMP Development Water Management Pesticides Walla Walla $93,435


58

Table 13. 319 Projects Funded in Response to the 2009 RFP by Type of Project, BMPs, and Parameters of Concern. (Cont.)




W09708 Clackamas Planting and Outreach Project Restoration

Streamside Planting/Info And Education

Pesticides L. Clackamas R. $59,928

W09709 2009-10 NNWC Streamside Planting and Maintenance

Streamside Planting

Temperature, Bacteria, Sediment

Nestucca-Neskowin WS

Nestucca, Neskowin & Sand Lake $60,000

W09710 North Coast Watersheds Enhancement Project

Restoration Riparian/Stream Habitat Improvement

Temperature, Nutrients, Bacteria

L. Columbia & N. Coast $40,000

W09711 Pilot Scale SW Master Planning w/Ecosystem Services Approach

TMDL Implementation Riparian Restoration Sediment,

Temperature Clackamas River $40,000

W09712 Upper Nehalem Riparian Restoration and Basin WQ Monitoring

TMDL Implementation Riparian Restoration Temperature,

Bacteria Upper Nehalem $84,652

W09713 Circle Creek Enhancement Project Phase Three

Riparian Restoration

Stream Bank Improvements

Temperature, Bacteria

Necanicum WS, Circle Ck Sub watershed $30,495


59





W09714 Scapoose Creek Riparian Restoration

TMDL Implementation

Riparian Restoration, Fencing Habitat North Coast $30,000

W09715 2010 Tillamook Co Children’s Clean Water Festival

Information and Education Watershed Education Children North Coast $5,000

W09716 BYPP Year 7 Riparian Restoration

Noxious Weeds/Non-Natives

Tillamook/Nehalem WS North Coast $60,000

W09717 Tillamook SWCD 2009 Stream Enhancement & Restoration

TMDL Implementation

Fencing, Riparian Planting, Off Stream

Nutrients, Sediment, Bacteria, Temp. North Coast $40,000

W09718 Devil's lake and D River WQ

303(d) Listed Stream BMP Developing Algal Blooms Devil's Lake $15,000

W09719 Coquille North Fork Drinking Water Source Protection

303(d) Listed Stream

Public Outreach, BMP Developing Bacteria, Nutrients Coquille Ws,

N/E Fork $15,246

W09720 Targeted WQ Outreach to Isthmus & Coalbank Sloughs of Coos Bay

303(d) Listed Stream

LID, Public Outreach, BMP Development. Bacteria, Nutrients

Isthmus, Davis, Coalbank Sloughs

$20,608

W09721

Low-Impact Development Workshops and Technical Assistance, Year 2

Public Awareness

LID, Public Outreach, BMP Development. Stormwater/Sediments

Coos Estuary, Chetco, Mid-Up Willamette

$17,500

W09722 Sucker/Kelly Creeks Comm. Ed. Outreach Project

TMDL Implementation

Public Outreach, BMP Developing Sediment E. Fork Illinois

river $5,000


60





W09723 Coordinated Rogue B. WQ Implementation Plan Development

TMDL Implementation

BMP Developing/Riparian Restoration Temperature Rogue $55,287

W09724 Little Butte Creek WQ Enhancement Project

303(d) Listed Stream Irrigation Management Temperature,

Sediment N. Fork Little Butte Creek $20,000

W09725 Santiam-Calapooia Landowner Recruitment & Restoration

TMDL Implementation

Riparian Restoration/Buffers Sediment N/S. Santiam,

Calapooia $79,868

W09726 School restoration program: restoration, design and SW management

TMDL Implementation

Public Outreach, Riparian Restoration

Temperature, Toxics, Sediment, Bacteria

Upper Willamette $20,000

W09727 Implementation Monitoring Of Umpqua Basin, Diamond Lake TMDL

TMDL Implementation Water Quality Assessment Macrophytes

Diamond Lake/Up N Umpqua

$35,500

W09728 PUR Water Quality Monitoring and Thermal Refugia Investigation

Monitoring BMP development/effectiveness Monitoring

Temperature Umpqua $32,425

W09729 GW Protection Ed. to Promote Citizen Involvement in S. Willamette Valley

GWMA Public Outreach

School Information And Education

Nutrients In Groundwater

Southern Willamette Valley GWMA

$67,985


61





W09730 Mid Coast Basin NPS Implementation Initiative

TMDL Implementation BMP Development Temperature,

Bacteria Alsea, Siletz-Yaquina, Siuslaw and Siltcoos

$75,581

W09731 StreamBank—Willamette Basin Riparian Restoration Focus

TMDL Implementation

BMP Planning, Riparian Restoration

Temperature, Bacteria, Nutrients

Marys River, Long Tom River, Scappoose

$15,000

W09732 Pesticide Stewardship Partnership

Pesticide Stewardship Public Awareness Pesticides Various $233,700

W09733 KOIN WQ Campaign Public Awareness Media/Broadcasting Runoff, Nutrients, Toxics Metro $8,334

W09731 StreamBank—Willamette Basin Riparian Restoration Focus

TMDL Implementation

BMP Planning, Riparian Restoration

Temperature, Bacteria, Nutrients

Marys River, Long Tom River, Scappoose

$45,000


62

Estimates of NPS Load Reductions EPA has requested that DEQ complete NPS pollutant load reductions using EPA’s Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS). DEQ’s 319-Grant Coordinator attended EPA’s 2009 annual GRTS training, which focused on helping states to develop estimates of NPS load reductions. Section 319 (h) (11) requires states to “report annually on what their nonpoint source programs are accomplishing, including available information on load reductions and actual water quality improvements”. The load reduction estimates need to be completed for projects funded by 319 funds annually. DEQ used the load reduction model, “Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load” (STEPL), within GRTS to estimate nitrogen (pounds per year), phosphorus (pounds per year), sediment (tons per year), and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (pounds per year) for twelve (12) of the thirty-five (35) 2009 319 funded projects. Total load reduction estimates by pollutant are as follows: 49,471 Pounds/Year Nitrogen Reduction; 17,407 Pounds/Year Phosphorous Reduction; 94,556 Pounds/Year Biological Oxygen Demand Reduction; and 16,461 Tons/Year Sediment Reduction EPA Region 10, during 2010, has offered to develop region-wide pollutant load reduction models for temperature and bacteria, which are the most 303(d) listed pollutants in Oregon and the region. The following table identifies the estimated NPS load reductions of nitrogen, phosphorous, BOD, and sediment for twelve (12) of the thirty-five (35) 2009 319 grant funded projects:


63

Table 14. Estimates of NPS Load Reductions of Selected 319 Funded Projects.

2009 NPS PROJECTS – ESTIMATED NPS LOAD REDUCTION (USING STEPL)

Project No. Title Basin/

Subbasin Type Nitrogen

Reduction Pounds/Year

Phosphorous Reduction

Pounds/Year

Biological Oxygen Demand


Sediment Reduction Tons/Year


Owyhee WS, Alkali Creek 303(d) listed 4,941 1,791 9,903 1,403

W09703 Strip Tillage in Malheur

and Owyhee Watersheds

Lower Malheur and Owyhee

SB1010 & GWMA

Implementation 7,246 2,650 14,546 2,148

W09708 Clackamas Planting and Outreach Project

Lower Clackamas

River

TMDL Implementation 235 59 174 27

W09709 2009-10 NNWC

Streamside Planting and Maintenance

Nestucca, Neskowin & Sand Lake

TMDL Implementation 797 129 2,840 27

W09712 Upper Nehalem

Riparian Restoration and Basin WQ

Monitoring

Upper Nehalem TMDL Implementation 3,3183 1,2075 60,038 9,377

W09713 Circle Creek

Enhancement Project Phase Three

Necanicum WS, Circle Ck

Sub Watershed 303(d) listed 166 58 338 45

W09714 Scapoose Creek Riparian Restoration North Coast TMDL

Implementation 670 90 1207 680


64

Table 14. Estimates of NPS Load Reductions of Selected 319 Funded Projects. (Cont.)

2009 NPS PROJECTS – ESTIMATED LOADING REDUCTION (USING STEPL)

Project No. Title Basin/

Subbasin Type Nitrogen


Phosphorous Reduction

Pounds/Year

Biological Oxygen Demand


Sediment Reduction Tons/Year

W09716 BYPP Year 7 North Coast TMDL Implementation 450 115 1,050 430

W09717 Tillamook SWCD 2009 Stream Enhancement

& Restoration North Coast TMDL

Implementation 553 135 1,230 1,020

W09726

School Restoration Program: Restoration,

Design and SW Management

Upper Willamette


W09731

StreamBank—Willamette Basin

Riparian Restoration Focus

Marys River, Long Tom

River, Scappoose

TMDL Implementation 455 110 1,230 450

W09731

StreamBank—Willamette Basin

Riparian Restoration Focus

Marys River, Long Tom

River, Scappoose


TOTAL REDUCTION 49,471 17,407 94,556 16,461


65

The following accomplishments occurred in 2009: 1. DEQ’s 319 Grants Coordinator received GRTS load reduction training from EPA.

2. DEQ for the first time completed load reductions estimates for 12 2009 319 funded projects.

3. Total load reduction estimates by pollutant are as follows:

• 49,471 Pounds/Year Nitrogen Reduction

• 17,407 Pounds/Year Phosphorous Reduction

• 94,556 Pounds/Year Biological Oxygen Demand Reduction

• 16,461 Tons/Year Sediment Reduction

Watershed-Based Plans During 2009, DEQ began developing an Oregon Watershed Approach (DEQ Northwest Region (NWR) Watershed Approach). The proposed watershed-based plan would integrate TMDL Implementation Plan requirements (Oregon TMDL Rule, OAR 340-042-0025), EPA’s Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS elements (Table 15), and drinking water protection program elements. DEQ plans to eventually develop watershed-based plans, where feasible, for future/ongoing implementation. Oregon’s strategy for improving state surface waters has always been on a watershed basis. The state has 21 river basins and 91 sub-basins. The state’s NPDES permitting, assessment, and TMDL work is aligned and prioritized according to these sub-basins. For groundwater areas, there are GWMA and basin coordinators assigned to each GWMA and basin/subbasin. They take the lead role as GWMAs and TMDLs are developed and implemented. DEQ’s current Watershed Approach for protecting water quality is to develop TMDLs for both point and nonpoint sources. TMDL implementation is addressed through a variety of mechanisms including AgWQMA plans, Forest Practices Act, Federal/State MOUs, NPDES permits, 401 certification, and plans developed by DMAs or other entities responsible for pollution not addressed by permit or the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). These mechanisms are used to implement the TMDL as outlined in the TMDL Water Quality Management Plan so impaired waters will eventually meet water quality standards. EPA has encouraged Oregon to add EPA’s nine key NPS element watershed-based plan elements to the current TMDL process. Based on EPA’s past review of several TMDL Implementation Plans, EPA has stated that these plans do not meet Section 319 grant requirements to develop and implement EPA’s nine key NPS element watershed-based plans in impaired waters. DEQ uses the TMDL and DMA required TMDL Implementation Plans in prioritizing and directing 319-project funding to where implementation work is needed. This approach is a work in progress. The Watershed Approach will improve with time.


66

The following table identifies EPA’s key watershed planning components with the nine key NPS elements: Table 15. EPA’s Basic Components of a Watershed Plan.

Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements

Element 1

a. Include the geographic extent of the watershed covered by the plan.

b. Identify the measurable water quality goals, including the appropriate water quality standards and designated uses.

c. Identify the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve the water quality standards.

d. Break down the sources to the subcategory level.

e. Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody.

Element 2

Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the water quality goals.

Element 3

a. Identify management measures need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions.

b. Identify critical areas in which management measures are needed.

Element 4

a. Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including management measures, administration, information/education activities, and monitoring.

b. Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures.

Element 5

Prepare an information/education component that identifies the education and outreach activities needed for implementing the watershed management plan.

Element 6

Develop a schedule for implementing the plan.

Element 7

Develop interim, measurable milestones for determining whether management measures are being implemented.


67

Table 15. EPA’s Basic Components of a Watershed Plan. (Cont.)

Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements (Cont.)

Element 8

Develop a set of criteria to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved and progress is being made toward attaining (or maintaining) water quality goals, and specify what measures will be taken if progress has not been demonstrated.

Element 9

a. Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being implemented appropriately and whether progress toward attainment or maintenance of water quality goals is being achieved.

b. Develop an evaluation framework. Oregon’s first step in developing a Watershed-Based Plan Strategy is to assess the extent that this approach was already in use. To do this, DEQ decided to review the most recent TMDL Implementation Plans, which were completed for the Willamette River Basin TMDL that was issued by DEQ in 2006. The DMAs submitted their TMDL Implementation Plans throughout 2008. Several plans were reviewed using the components listed in Table 15 as evaluation criteria to determine how closely the plans meet EPA’s Watershed Planning components and Nine Key NPS elements. It is important to note that this information is for program review only. None of the DMA TMDL Implementation plans will be required to be revised based on this evaluation. These plans have been determined by DEQ to meet Oregon’s TMDL rule, OAR 340-042-0025 and DEQ’s current TMDL Implementation Plan Guidance Document (http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/docs/impl/07wq004tmdlimplplan.pdf). The guidance document specifically states that DEQ would accept a Plan that includes some measures that would be implemented over time as “progress not perfection”. DEQ understands and accepts that most DMAs do not have the resources to do all the management measures identified in their approved plan immediately, but will be implemented over time as identified in their DEQ approved Plan.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/docs/impl/07wq004tmdlimplplan.pdf�


68

The following plans were reviewed and the results (worksheets) of the evaluation are included Appendix 3:

• City of Eugene

• City of Creswell

• City of Lowell

• Benton County

• Upper Willamette and Upper Siuslaw Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan (AgWQMAP)

• BLM Water Quality Restoration Plan (TMDL Implementation Plan)

In general, the reviewed Willamette River Basin TMDL Implementation Plans adequately address some of the nine key elements, except for the following: Element 1.d. Break down the sources to the subcategory level. The TMDL load allocations are included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the load allocations by category and subcategory is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Element 1.e. Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody. The TMDL load allocations are included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific pollutant load estimates by category and subcategory, as per EPA’s Element 1.d., above, is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Element 2. Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the water quality goals. The TMDL load allocations are included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the load allocations by category and subcategory is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Element 3.a. Identify the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions. General management measures are mostly identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific measures identified in the plan, such as location of all needed riparian and wetland restoration areas, locations of streambank erosion needing repair, or locations of existing septic onsite systems with known failing systems are not identified in the plan. Element 3.b. Identify critical areas in which management measures are needed. The TMDL Implementation Plan identifies some critical areas for riparian and wetland restoration but not all areas. The management measures identified in Element 3.a., above, are not identified as required by this element.


69

Element 4.a. Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including management measures, administration, information/education activities, and monitoring. Not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Element 4.b. Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures. The TMDL Implementation Plan includes the sources of financial assistance available to implement the management measures. However, the Plan does not address the amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures as per EPA’s requirements for this element. Element 8. Develop a set of criteria to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved and progress is being made toward attaining (or maintaining) water quality goals, and specify what measures will be taken if progress has not been demonstrated. The TMDL Implementation Plan meets one of this Element needs: “... indicate how you will determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met”. However, the Plan does not include tracking water quality benchmarks such as direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings) that may require changing management practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution concentrations to respond to treatment. Element 9.a. Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being implemented appropriately and whether progress toward attainment or maintenance of water quality goals is being achieved. The TMDL Implementation Plan includes a TMDL Implementation Tracking Matrix and a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being implemented appropriately. However, the Plan does mention the need for but does not include a monitoring component to determine whether progress toward attainment or maintenance of water quality goals is being achieved as per this element.


70

Table 16. Summary of Review of Willamette Basin TMDL Implementation Plans in Meeting Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements.

EPA Key Watershed Planning Components with

Nine Key NPS Elements

City of Eugene

City of Creswell

City of Lowell

Benton County

Upper Willamette/Upper

Siuslaw Agricultural WQ

Management Area Plan (AgWQMAP)

BLM Water

Quality Restora-tion Plan

Average For Six

Reviewed TMDL Imp.

Plans

Meets Element (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

Element 1


Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes Yes Yes (1/2)

c. Identify the causes & sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve the water quality standards.

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

d. Break down the sources to the subcategory level. Yes/No No No No No Yes No

e. Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody. No Yes/No Yes/No No No Yes/No Yes/No

(1/2)


71

Table 16. Summary of Review of Willamette Basin TMDL Implementation Plans in Meeting Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements. (Cont.)

EPA Key Watershed Planning Components

with Nine Key NPS Elements

City of Eugene

City of Creswell

City of Lowell

Benton County

Upper Willamette/Upper Siuslaw Agricultural WQ Management Area Plan

(AgWQMAP)

BLM Water


Average For Six

Reviewed TMDL Imp.

Plans

Meets Element (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

Element 2


No Yes/No Yes/No No No Yes/No Yes/No (1/2)

Element 3

a. Identify the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions.

Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No


Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No No Yes/No Yes/No

Element 4


No No No No No No No


72




City of Eugene

City of Creswell

City of Lowell

Benton County


(AgWQMAP)

BLM Water


Average For Six

Reviewed TMDL Imp.

Plans


Element 4 b. Identify the sources and

amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures.

Yes/No Yes/No No Yes/No Yes/No No Yes/No

Element 5


Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes/No Yes

Element 6

Develop a schedule for implementing the plan. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes/No Yes/No Yes


73




City of Eugene

City of Creswell

City of Lowell

Benton County


(AgWQMAP)

BLM Water


Average For Six

Reviewed TMDL Imp.

Plans


Element 7


Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Element 8


No Yes/No No No No No No


74




City of Eugene

City of Creswell

City of Lowell

Benton County


(AgWQMAP)

BLM Water


Average For Six

Reviewed TMDL Imp.

Plans


Element 9


Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

b. Develop an evaluation framework. Yes Yes/No Yes Yes Yes/No Yes Yes


75

5. Success Stories/Environmental Improvement WQ-10 Projects None available for this year’s report. Although, EPA’s consultant, Tetra Tech, is working with DEQ’s basin coordinator to develop a success story for the Bear Creek watershed. This success story may be included in next year’s (2010) NPS Annual report. Also for next year’s report, a Tualatin River Basin success story will most likely be included. SP-12 Projects Wilson River, Tillamook Bay Waterbody Improved Bacteria from livestock and human sources caused Oregon’s Wilson River to exceed water quality standards, prompting DEQ to add an 8.5-mile segment of the lower Wilson River to the state’s 1998 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. With support from multiple organizations, landowners installed BMPs throughout the Wilson River watershed and beyond. Data show a statistically significant decreasing trend in bacteria levels. In fact, the river has met water quality standards since 2005. However, DEQ still lists the river as impaired while DEQ performs a final data review and upload to the assessment database. Problem The 194-square-mile Wilson River watershed is the largest of five main drainage basins feeding Tillamook Bay on Oregon’s northern coast. The dominant land use in the watershed is state and federal forestlands (81 percent of the watershed’s total area). Dairy pastures dominate the lowland areas of the watershed. Development pressures from the city of Tillamook are also affecting the lower portions of the watershed. The Wilson River (Figure 4) is protected for recreational contact use (swimming and wading). Oregon’s recreational use water quality standard requires that (1) the 30-day log mean not exceed 126 Escherichia Coli counts per 100 milliliters (ml) from a minimum of five samples, and (2) no single sample exceed 406 E. coli counts per 100 ml.


76

In the mid-1990s, data showed that bacteria concentrations were relatively low in the upper, forested part of the watershed. However, data indicated that bacteria concentrations exceeded water quality standards throughout the year near the river’s mouth. Therefore, DEQ added an 8.5-mile segment of the river (mouth to Little North Fork Wilson River) to Oregon’s 1998 CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Project Highlights The Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program, now known as the Tillamook Estuaries Partnership (TEP), worked closely with community, state, and federal entities to develop and implement the Tillamook Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan beginning in 1999. The plan recommended 63 actions that could help improve water quality, enhance aquatic habitat and mitigate flooding. DEQ completed a Tillamook Bay watershed TMDL for temperature and bacteria in 2001. Also in 2001, the NRCS and the Tillamook SWCD published a Watershed Plan/Environmental Assessment for the Lower Tillamook Bay watershed. That document outlines agricultural facilities, practices, and restoration activities needed to address TMDL-related water quality issues in the Tillamook Bay watershed.

Figure 5. Oregon’s Wilson River Is Popular Site for Kayakers and Canoeists.


77

On a smaller scale, the Tillamook County Performance Partnership and a local citizens’ group called the Tillamook Bay Watershed Council (TBWC) developed a watershed assessment report specifically for the Wilson River in 2001. The report describes watershed conditions and recommends actions that address issues of water quality, fisheries and fish habitat, and watershed hydrology. In 2001, TEP began working with OSU on a three-year genetic marker study on bacteria in the watershed. The study indicates that livestock and other ruminants contributed most of the bacteria in the lower Wilson River. Using the data, watershed managers began targeting practices to reduce bacteria. In 2003, TEP began offering its Backyard Planting Program (BYPP), a cost-free, voluntary assistance program to help private landowners remove invasive species and improve habitats for fish and wildlife. The program’s coordinator works with landowners to develop site-specific riparian restoration plans. Between 2003 and 2007, the program helped plant almost 10,000 trees along more than 17 miles of streams in the Tillamook Bay watershed. Between 2002 and 2007, stakeholders implemented numerous BMPs in the lower Wilson River watershed (Figure 6). The TBWC, TEP, and Tillamook SWCD worked with landowners to complete 20 riparian enhancement projects (12 of which were BYPP projects) that included planting, fencing, and invasive species removal. The projects stabilized streambanks and removed livestock from the river’s riparian area. In addition, TEP acquired three sensitive wetland parcels, which will be restored in the coming years and maintained by Tillamook County as permanent wetland areas. Figure 6. Stakeholders Completed Numerous Restoration Projects In The Lower Wilson

River Watershed.


78

Two wastewater treatment systems discharge to the Wilson River, including a campground and the Tillamook County Creamery Association (TCCA). Improvements to the TCCA system helped to reduce bacteria levels released to the river. TBWC is also collaborating with the ODF, Bonneville Power Administration, and ODFW to remove vehicle access roads and primitive camping areas from more than four acres of upper Wilson River riparian areas. Results Stakeholders’ efforts to target and reduce bacteria pollution throughout the Tillamook Bay watershed appear to be working. Data show that bacteria levels in the Wilson River have met water quality standards since 2005 (Figure 7). The lower sections of the other four main tributaries in the Tillamook Bay watershed—Miami, Kilchis, Trask, and Tillamook rivers - still violate Oregon’s water quality standards for recreational use; however, data indicate that bacteria levels in those rivers are declining steadily. Although the Wilson River now meets standards for bacteria, it remains on the impaired waters list until DEQ does a final review of recent data and uploads it to DEQ’s assessment database. Bacteria Levels In The Wilson River have steadily declined since 1997 and now consistently meet the two-part recreational use water quality standard, which requires (1) that the 30-day log mean not exceed 126 E. Coli Counts per 100 ml from a minimum of five samples and (2) that no single sample exceed 406 E. Coli Counts per 100 Ml.

Figure 7. Bacteria Levels in the Wilson River.


79

Partners and Funding Numerous partners have worked to restore Tillamook Bay and its watershed, including the OWEB, ODA, DEQ, ODFW, TEP, Tillamook County, TBWC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), TCCA, Tillamook SWCD, Tillamook Native Plant Cooperative, and private landowners. Partners spent more than $1.4 million restoring and protecting the lower Wilson River watershed. TEP spent the majority of the funds ($1.3 million, mostly through USFWS grant programs) to purchase three sensitive wetland tracts. Partners also completed 20 riparian restoration projects at a cost of $68,000, which included $26,000 in CWA section 319 funds; $13,000 in matching funds from OWEB; and a variety of other federal, state, private, and in-kind funds. For additional information contact: York Johnson Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 503-322-2222 • [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�


80


81


State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Water Quality Division

APPENDICES


82

APPENDIX 1

Table 17. Progress of NPS 319 Funded Projects (Grant Performance Report)

PROGRESS OF NPS 319 FUNDED PROJECTS (GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT)

PROJECT NO. PROJECT TITLE YEAR REGION CONTRACT WITH PROJECT

BUDGET EXPENDITURES BALANCE STATUS PROJECT

MGR END DATE

W05550 Central Canal Pipeline Middle Phase 2005 ER East Fork

Irrigation District $200,000.00 $200,000 $0 CLOSED Lamb, Bonnie

30-Jun- 06

W05551 Upper Deschutes WQ Restoration Monitoring Project

2005 ER Upper Deschutes Watershed $79,861.74 $79,862 $0 CLOSED Lamb,

Bonnie 31-Dec-07

W05552 Agency Lake Fringe Wetland Restoration 2005 ER Klamath Basin

Rangeland Trust $38,600.00 $38,600 $0 CLOSED Kirk, Steve 31-Dec-07

W05553 Implementation Monitoring Of Diamond Lake

2005 ER USDA Umpqua National Forest $30,098.00 $30,098 $0 CLOSED Kirk, Steve

31-Dec-06

W05554 Cedar Hill Farm Wetland Enhancement Wallowa

2005 ER ? $0.00 $0 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski Tonya

31-Dec-07


83

Table 17. Progress of NPS 319 Funded Projects (Grant Performance Report) (Cont.)




MGR END DATE

W05555 WQ Monitoring For Up. Grande Ronde R. Basin

2005 ER Union SWCD $30,000.00 $30,000 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski Tonya

31-Dec-07

W05556

Umatilla TMDL & Wildhorse Nitrate/Bmp Monitoring

2005 ER Umatilla Basin Watershed Foundation

$101,521.00 $25,711 FINAL PAYMENT CLOSED Dombrowski

Tonya

31-Dec-09

W05557 New Water Quality Programs In The Metro Area

2005 NWR Metro $74,997.43 $74,997 $0 CLOSED Simpson, Manette

31-Dec-07

W05558

Upper Nehalem Riparian Enhancement & Monitoring

2005 NWR Upper Nehalem Watershed Council

$86,059.68 $86,060 $0 CLOSED Apple, Bruce

31-Dec-06

W05559 2005 Maintenance Of Nestucca - Neskowin Ws

2005 NWR

Nestucca Neskowin Watershed Council


31-Dec-07

W05560 2005-06 Nestucca Neskowin WSC Streamside

2005 NWR



31-Dec-06

W05561 Tillamook SWCD Stream Enhancement 2005 NWR ? $0.00 $0 $0 CANCEL

LED Camacho,

Ivan 31-Dec-07


84





MGR END DATE

W05562 Willow Creek Riparian Restoration & Demo 2005 NWR Malheur SWCD $6,868.94 $6,869 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski,

Tonya

30-Sep-08

W05563 Organizing 2006 Children's Clean Water Fest

2005 NWR Tillamook County Estuary Partnership


31-Aug-06

W05564

Agriculture WQ Landowner Implementation Project

2005 NWR

Clackamas Co Soil & Water Conservation District

$88,972.82 $88,973 $0 CLOSED Simpson, Manette

31-Dec-07

W05565 North Fork Nehalem River Enhancement 2005 NWR

Tillamook County Estuary Partnership


30-May-07

W05579 Blue Lake Bottom Barrier Installation 2005 NWR ? $0.00 $0 $0 CANCEL

LED Camacho,

Ivan

31-Dec-07

W05566 Sucker Creek TMDL Implementation, Outreach

2005 WR Forestry Action Committee $21,206.05 $21,206 $0 CLOSED Wright,

Pamela 30-Jun-07

W05567 Pudding R. Pesticide Reduction Partnership

2005 WR Marion County SWCD $14,473.50 $14,474 $0 CLOSED Masterson,

Kevin

30-Mar-07


85





MGR END DATE

W05568 Elk Creek Ws Bacteria Source Tracking Project

2005 WR ? $0.00 $0 $0 CLOSED Lindberg, Bobbi

31-Dec-07

W05569 Sixes Sub-Basin Weed Ws Restoration Plan

2005 WR Curry County SWCD $47,115.00 $47,115 $0 CLOSED Waltz,

David 30-Jun-07

W05570 Coquille Mainstem Riparian Assessment 2005 WR

Coquille Watershed Association

$17,238.77 $17,239 $0 CLOSED Blake, Pam

30-Mar-06

W05571 Tenmile Lakes WQ Implementation 2005 WR City of Lakeside $168,922.58 $168,923 $0 CLOSED Waltz,

David

30-Nov-07

W05572 Mill Creek Riparian Restoration 2005 WR Douglas SWCD $11,523.35 $11,523 $0 CLOSED Lindberg,

Bobbi 31-Dec-07

W05573 Dixon Creek Riparian Restoration 2005 WR Douglas SWCD $20,097.11 $20,097 $0 CLOSED Lindberg,

Bobbi

31-Dec-07

W05574

Myrtle Creek Watershed Restoration & Outreach

2005 WR Partnership for Umpqua Rivers $22,145.45 $22,145 $0 CLOSED Paul

Heberling

31-Dec-07


86





MGR END DATE

W05575 Middle Rogue & Bear Creek Comprehensive WQMP

2005 WR Rogue Valley Council of Governments

$47,000.00 $47,000 $0 CLOSED Tugaw, Heather

30-Jun-07

W05576 Partnership For NPS Monitoring & Assessment


David 28-Feb-08

W05577 LID Workshops / Technical Assistance 2005 WR

Oregon Environmental Council

$75,000.00 $38,136 FINAL PAYMENT CLOSED Wright,

Pamela

15-Dec-09

W05578 Coordinated Rogue Basin WQIP Development



30-Sep-09

W05580 Diamond Lake Post-Treatment Monitoring 2005 ER To be re-

contracted $30,000.00 $0 $30,000 OPEN Heberling, Paul

31-Dec-09

W06700 Rogue MAP 2006 ER Rogue Basin Coordinating Council


31-Dec-08

W06701 Lower Umatilla Basin GWMA Outreach and Survey

2006 ER Umatilla County SWCD $20,550.00 $20,550 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski,

Tonya

28-Feb-09

W06702 Walla Walla Basin Pesticide Stewardship Partnership

2006 ER Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council

$89,538.24 $84,944 FINAL PAYMENT OPEN Masterson,

Kevin 31-Oct- 09


87





MGR END DATE

W06703 Roadside Filter Strip Demo for U. G. R. Basin

2006 ER Union SWCD $0.00 $0 $0 CANCELLED

Dombrowski, Tonya

31-Dec-09

W06704 Crooked River TMDL Implement & WQ Monitoring

2006 ER Crooked River Watershed Council

$49,525.00 $37,078 FINAL PAYMENT OPEN Lamb,

Bonnie 31-Dec-09

W06705

Bridge Creek Watershed BMP Implement Outreach & Education

2006 ER

Wheeler Soil & Water Conservation District

$61,794.00 $50,262 FINAL PAYMENT OPEN Dombrowski,

Tonya

31-Dec-09

W06706 Precision Agriculture In The Umatilla Basin 2006 ER Umatilla County

SWCD $27,540.00 $27,540 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski, Tonya

31-Mar-09

W06707 Umatilla TMDL & Wildhorse Nitrate/Bmp Monit.

2006 ER Umatilla Basin Watershed Foundation

$56,786.75 $56,787 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski, Tonya

31-Mar-09

W06708 Legacy Pesticide Collection Umatilla Basin

2006 ER ? $4,974.60 $4,975 $0 CLOSED Masterson, Kevin

31-Dec-08

W06709 2006-07 NNWC Streamside Planting And Maintenance

2006 NWR Nestucca Neskowin Watershed Council


30-Jun-07


88





MGR END DATE

W06710 Tillamook County Children Clean Water Festival TMDL Ed.



31-Jul- 07

W06711 Ag. & Backyard Planting Program Yr 4 2006 NWR



30-Jun-07

W06712 Upper Nehalem Riparian Restoration & Monitoring



31-Dec-07

W06713 Willamette TMDL: Creating Dialog & Tools

2006 NWR Lower Nehalem Watershed Council

$74,967.87 $ 74,968 $0 CLOSED Wright, Pamela

30-Jun-09

W06714 Marketing Green Certified Landscaping 2006 NWR

Oregon Environmental Council

$31,000.00 $24,261 FINAL PAYMENT OPEN Apple,

Bruce 30-Nov-09

W06715 Implementation Monitoring of Diamond Lake R

2006 WR Partnership for Umpqua Rivers $67,240.00 $67,240 $0 CLOSED Heberling,

Paul

30-Nov-08

W06716 Dawson Ranch Riparian Restoration Project

2006 WR Douglas SWCD $20,541.55 $20,542 $0 CLOSED Heberling, Paul

30-Sep-07

W06717 Coquille Watershed Effectiveness Monitoring

2006 WR Coquille Watershed Association

$42,260.00 $42,260 $0 CLOSED Waltz, David

31-Mar-09


89





MGR END DATE

W06718 Coquille Watershed Riparian Enhancement


$81,600.00 $81,600 $0 CLOSED Waltz, David

30-Apr- 08

W06719 Siuslaw Basin TMDL Development 2006 WR

Siuslaw Watershed Council

$40,319.98 $40,320 $0 CLOSED Lindberg, Bobbi

31-Dec-08

W06720 Outreach & Assessment of S Coast WQ Limited


David

15-Jan- 08

W06721 L.S. Fork Coos R. Assessments, Outreach & Education

2006 WR Coos Watershed Association $106,317.00 $106,317 $0 CLOSED Waltz,

David 30-Sep-08

W06722 West Fork Williams Ck. Salmon Habitat Rest

2006 WR Williams Creek Watershed $21,000.00 $21,000 $0 CLOSED Tugaw,

Heather

30-Jun-08

W06723 S Willamette Val GWMA Plan & Implementation

2006 WR Lane Council of Governments $116,530.00 $116,530 $0 CLOSED Eldridge,

Audrey

31-Jan- 08

W06724 Midcoast Basin Monitoring & Data Mgt (TMDL Dev.)

2006 WR Lincoln SWCD $188,100.00 $188,100 $0 CLOSED Lindberg, Bobbi

30-Jun-09

W06725 Little Butte & Bear Creek Water Enhancement

2006 WR Jackson County $18,418.84 $18,419 $0 CLOSED Tugaw, Heather

30-Jun-08


90





MGR END DATE

W06726

Spring 2009 Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Monitoring

2006 WR

Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District

$64,721.96 $62,385 FINAL PAYMENT OPEN Masterson,

Kevin 31-Dec-09

W07700 Powder River WQ Enhancement Project 2007 ER

Baker Valley Soil & Water Conservation District

$52,500.00 $52,500 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski, Tonya

31-Dec-08

W07701 Owyhee River Improvement Project 2007 ER Malheur SWCD $37,652.00 $23,173 $14,479 OPEN Dombrowski,

Tonya

30-Jun-10

W07702 Choir Boys Construct Wetland Project 2007 ER Malheur SWCD $52,248.00 $52,248 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski,

Tonya

30-Sep-09

W07703 Middle Fork of The John Day River Aquatic

2007 ER Nature Conservancy $174,850.00 $103,888 $70,962 OPEN Dombrowski,

Tonya

31-Dec-09

W07704 Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring in Priority Basin

2007 ER Upper Deschutes Watershed $80,823.00 $72,741 $8,082 OPEN Lamb,

Bonnie 30-Apr- 10

WRC#17 Wash Rack Solution 2007 ER To Be Re-Contracted $0.00 $0 $0 CLOSED Dombrowski

Tonya 31-Dec-11


91





MGR END DATE

W07705 Little North Fork, Nehalem Riparian Enhancement

2007 NWR Lower Nehalem Watershed Council


31-Dec-08

W07706 Wolfe Creek Enhancement Project 2007 NWR



31-Dec-08

W07707 Circle Creek Enhancement Project 2007 NWR North Coast Land

Conservancy $27,535.00 $24,782 $2,754 OPEN Apple, Bruce

30-Oct- 09

W07708 2008 Tillamook Co. Children's Water Fest 2007 NWR



31-Aug-08

W07709 Backyard Planting Program - Year 5 2007 NWR



31-Dec-08

W07710 Cedar Island Demonstration Restoration P

2007 NWR Willamette Riverkeeper $11,730.00 $4,622 $7,108 OPEN Apple,

Bruce

31-Dec-09

W07711 Upper Nehalem Riparian Restoration 2007 NWR

Upper Nehalem Watershed Council


31-Dec-08

W07712 Multnomah Co. Central Library Eco-Roof

2007 NWR Multnomah County $102,148.00 $102,148 $0 CLOSED Apple,

Bruce

30-Jun-09


92





MGR END DATE

W07713 Tillamook SWCD 2007 Stream Enhancement 2007 NWR Tillamook County

SWCD $47,872.00 $29,587 $18,285 OPEN Apple, Apple

30-Jun-10

W07714 2007-08 NNWC Streamside Planting 2007 NWR

Nestucca Neskowin WS Council


31-Dec-08

W07715 WQ Investment: Streamside Restoration

2007 NWR Metro $90,000.00 $46,501 $43,499 OPEN Apple, Bruce

30-Nov-09

W07716 Pudding Basin Pesticide Stewardship Partnership

2007 NWR ? $27,351.87 $27,352 $0 CLOSED Masterson, Kevin

28-Feb-09

W07717 Clackamas Basin Pesticide Stewardship 2007 NWR ? $25,002.33 $25,002 $0 CLOSED Masterson,

Kevin

28-Feb-09

W07718 Yamhill Basin Pesticide Stewardship Partnership

2007 NWR ? $20,794.55 $ 20,795 $0 CLOSED Masterson, Kevin

28-Feb-09

W07719 NPS #17 319 Recycled Project Dollars 2007 NWR ? $1,104.52 $0 $1,105 OPEN ?

31-Dec-11

W07720 Scholfield Creek Riparian Enhancement

2007 WR Umpqua SWCD $21,030.00 $6,917 $14,113 OPEN Heberling, Paul

31-Dec-09


93





MGR END DATE

W07721 Applegate Ws TMDL Implementation 2007 WR

Applegate River Watershed Council

$112,514.00 $49,084 $63,430 OPEN Meyers, Bill

30-Jun-10

W07722 Medford Sports & Community Park Urban Re

2007 WR City of Medford $49,000.00 $18,961 $30,039 OPEN Tugaw, Heather

31-Dec-09

W07723 Private Well Outreach And Monitoring 2007 WR Oregon State

University $53,503.00 $53,503 $0 CLOSED Eldridge, Audrey

30-Aug-08

W07724 Calapooia & Santiam Landowner Outreach and Education

2007 WR South Santiam Watershed Council

$73,766.00 $73,581 $185 OPEN Gramlich, Nancy

31-Aug-09

W07725 McKenzie River Septic System Assistance

2007 WR Eugene Water & Electric Board $68,000.00 $68,000 $0 CLOSED Rubin,

Jared 30-Jun-09

W07726 Integration TMDL and GW Priorities 2007 WR

Benton Soil & Water Conservation District

$171,000.00 $55,644 $115,356 OPEN Eldridge, Audrey

30-Nov-10

W08700 Meacham Ck. Restoration Bioassessment

2008 ER Oregon State University $44,034.00 $37,617 $6,417 OPEN Dombrows

ki Tonya 30-Jan- 11

W08701 Herbicides In Fifteen Mile Watershed Investigation

2008 ER Wasco Co SWCD $34,267.00 $0 $34,267 OPEN Dombrowski, Tonya ?


94





MGR END DATE

W08702 Whychus Creek Restoration at Camp Polk

2008 ER Upper Deschutes Watershed Council

$176,300.00 $58,128 $118,172 OPEN Lamb, Bonnie

30-Apr- 11

W08703

Ochoco Ck Stream Enhancement and Greenway Expansion

2008 ER Crooked River Watershed Council

$77,316.00 $69,584 $7,732 OPEN Lamb, Bonnie

30-Jun-10

W08704 Lampson Levee Setback & Channel Stability Project

2008 ER

Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation

$155,000.00 $0 $155,000 OPEN Dombrowski Tonya

30- Jan- 11

W08705 Nestucca Neskowin Streamside Planting /Maintenance

2008 NWR


$60,000.00 $60,000 $0 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 09

W08706 Agriculture & Rural Residential Planting 2008 NWR


$48,500.00 $48,473 $27 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 09

W08707 CCWF 2009 2008 NWR Tillamook County Estuary Partnership


31-Aug- 09

W08708 Gresham NPS Red. Program. Stream Outreach/Rest.

2008 NWR City of Gresham $58,350.00 $0 $58,350 OPEN Apple, Bruce

30-Jun- 10


95





MGR END DATE

W08709

Upper Nehalem Riparian Rest & Basin WQ Monitoring


$53,786.00 $48,091 $5,695 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 09

W08710 Riparian & Wetland Restoration 2008 NWR Columbia SWCD $44,285.00 $33,547 $10,738 OPEN Apple,

Bruce

30- Apr- 10

W08711 Dry Manure Storage Initiative 2008 NWR Clatsop SWCD $23,660.00 $23,660 $0 OPEN Apple,

Bruce

31-Dec- 09

W08712 Rinearson Creek Project 2008 NWR Willamette

Riverkeeper $22,101.00 $11,072 $11,029 OPEN Apple, Bruce

30-Jun- 10

W08713 N. Willamette Chemical Waste Collection

2008 NWR Marion County SWCD $19,469.82 $19,470 $0 CLOSED Apple,

Bruce

31-Dec- 09

WRC#18 NPS #18 319 Recycled Project Dollars

2008 HQ SW ? $2,919.18 $0 $2,919 OPEN Camacho, Ivan ?

W08714

Siltcoos L. WQ & Macro Data Acquisition For TMDL

2008 WR Portland State University $85,953.00 $77,269 $8,684 OPEN Waltz,

David

31- Oct- 09

W08715 Pringle Creek Riparian Pilot Project

2008 WR City of Salem $6,415.00 $990 $5,425 OPEN Gramlich, Nancy

30-Sep- 10


96





MGR END DATE

W08716 Southern Willamette Valley GWMA Action Plan/Imp

2008 WR Lane Council of Governments $99,893.00 $46,379 $53,514 OPEN Eldridge,

Audrey

30-May- 10

W08717 Mid-Coast Sediment Ass. & Source Ctrl Program

2008 WR Siuslaw Watershed Council

$69,608.00 $54,588 $15,020 OPEN Lindberg, Bobbie

31-Dec- 09

W08718 Upper Willamette WQ Monitoring & Outreach Program

2008 WR Middle Fork Willamette WS Council

$107,791.00 $49,792 $57,999 OPEN Rubin, Jared

30-Dec- 10

W08719 Purchase Water Quality Monitoring 2008 WR Partnership for

Umpqua Rivers $33,220.00 $12,306 $20,914 OPEN Heberling, Paul

31-Dec- 10

W08720 Tenmile Lakes WQ Impl. Plan Phase Ii 2008 WR City of Lakeside $109,725.00 $28,729 $80,996 OPEN Waltz,

David

31- Jan- 11

W08721 Bear Ck Ws WQIP Dev. & TMDL Implementation


$49,807.00 $40,264 $9,543 OPEN Tugaw, Heather

31-Dec- 09

W09700 WQ And Effect Monitoring in the Crooked R. WS

2009 ER ? $80,000.00 $0 $80,000 OPEN Lamb, Bonnie ?

W09701 Willow Creek Effectiveness Monitoring

2009 ER Malheur Watershed Council

$50,000.00 $0 $50,000 OPEN Dombrowski Tonya

21-Dec- 12


97





MGR END DATE


2009 ER ? $35,000.00 $0 $35,000 OPEN Dombrowski Tonya ?

W09703 Strip Tillage In Malheur & Owyhee Watersheds

2009 ER Oregon State University $83,565.00 $0 $83,565 OPEN Dombrowski

Tonya

01-Feb- 11

W09704 Owyhee River Improvement Project - Phase 2

2009 ER ? $35,000.00 $0 $35,000 OPEN Dombrowski Tonya ?

W09705 City of Prineville Stormwater Pollution Reduction

2009 ER City of Prineville $70,000.00 $0 $70,000 OPEN Dombrowski Tonya

31- Jul- 11

W09706

LUBGWMA Action Plan Effectiveness Monitoring & Outreach

2009 ER ? $38,000.00 $0 $38,000 OPEN Richerson, Phil ?

W09707 Apple Sunburn Prevention Using Organic Biofilms

2009 ER Oregon State University $93,435.00 $0 $93,435 OPEN Dombrowski

Tonya

31- Jul- 11

W09708 Clackamas Planting Outreach Project 2009 NWR Clackamas River

Basin Council $40,928.00 $0 $40,928 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 10


98





MGR END DATE

W09709 2009-10 NNWC Streamside Planting & Maintenance

2009 NWR


$60,000.00 $6,342 $53,658 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 10

W09710

North Coast Watersheds Enhancement Project

2009 NWR ? $40,000.00 $0 $40,000 OPEN Apple, Bruce ?

W09711 Pilot Scale SW Master Planning W/Ecosystem Approach

2009 NWR City of Damascus $40,000.00 $0 $40,000 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 10

W09712

Up Nehalem Riparian Restoration & Basin WQ Monitor


$84,652.00 $0 $84,652 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 10

W09713 Circle Creek Enhancement Project Phase Three

2009 NWR North Coast Land Conservancy $30,495.00 $0 $30,495 OPEN Apple,

Bruce 31-Dec- 10

W09714 Scapoose Creek Riparian Restoration

2009 NWR Scappoose Bay Watershed Council

$30,000.00 $0 $30,000 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 10

W09715 2010 Tillamook Co Children Clean Water Festival


$5,000.00 $0 $5,000 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 10


99





MGR END DATE

W09716 BYPP Year 7 2009 NWR Tillamook County Estuary Partnership

$60,000.00 $0 $60,000 OPEN Apple, Bruce

31-Dec- 10

W09717

Tillamook SWCD 2007 Stream Enhance & Restoration

2009 NWR Tillamook County SWCD $40,000.00 $0 $40,000 OPEN Apple,

Bruce 31-Dec- 10

W09718 Pesticide Stewardship Partnership

2009 NWR ? $233,700.00 $97,559 $136,141 OPEN Kishida, Koto ?

W09719 KOIN TV WQ Campaign 2009 NWR ? $8,334.00 $8,334 $0 CLOSED Danab,

Marcia ?

WRC#19 Nps#19 Recycled Project Dollars 2009 HQ SW ? $18,518.00 $0 $18,518 OPEN Camacho,

Ivan ?

W09720 Devil's Lake and D River WQ 2009 WR ? $15,000.00 $0 $15,000 OPEN Waltz,

David ?

W09721 Coquille North Fork Drinking Water Source Protection


$15,246.00 $0 $15,246 OPEN Fern, Jackie

31-Mar- 11

W09722

Targeted WQ Outreach to Isthmus & Coalbank Sloughs

2009 WR Coos Watershed Association $20,608.00 $0 $20,608 OPEN Waltz,

David

30-Nov- 11


100





MGR END DATE

W09723 Low Impact Dev. Workshops & Tech. Assist. Year 2

2009 WR Oregon Environmental Council

$17,500.00 $0 $17,500 OPEN Waltz, David

15-Dec- 10

W09724 Sucker/Kelly Creeks Comm. Ed. Outreach

2009 WR Forestry Action Committee $5,000.00 $0 $5,000 OPEN Tugaw,

Heather

31-Dec- 11

W09725

Coordinated Rogue Basin WQ Implementation Plan Dev


$45,769.00 $1,608 $44,161 OPEN Tugaw, Heather

31-Dec- 11

W09726 Little Butte Creek WQ Enhancement Project

2009 WR Jackson County SWCD $20,000.00 $0 $20,000 OPEN Tugaw,

Heather 30-Jun- 11

W09727

Santiam-Calapooia Landowner Recruitment & Restoration

2009 WR South Santiam Watershed Council

$79,868.00 $0 $79,868 OPEN Wright, Pamela

30-Sep- 11

W09728

School Restoration Program: Restoration, Design And Stormwater Management

2009 WR Camas Education Network $20,000.00 $0 $20,000 OPEN Rubin, Jared

30-Jun- 11

W09729

Impl. Monit. of Umpqua Basin, Diamond Lake TMDL

2009 WR Partnership for Umpqua Rivers $35,500.00 $0 $35,500 OPEN Heberling,

Paul

31-Dec- 11


101





MGR END DATE

W09730

Purchase Water Quality Monitoring & Thermal Refugia Equipment

2009 WR Partnership for Umpqua Rivers $32,425.00 $0 $32,425 OPEN Heberling,

Paul 30-Sep- 11

W09731 GW Protection Ed. to Promote Citizen Involvement

2009 WR Oregon State University $67,985.00 $0 $67,985 OPEN Eldridge,

Audrey

30-Jun- 11

W09732

Mid Coast Basin NPS Implementation Initiative

2009 WR Lincoln SWCD $75,581.00 $19,790 $55,791 OPEN Lindberg, Bobbi

30-Sep- 10

W09733

Streambank - Willamette Basin Riparian Restoration

2009 WR Freshwater Trust $60,000.00 $51,500 $8,500 OPEN Michie, Ryan

30-Sep- 12


102

APPENDIX 2

Table 18. DEQ’s Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 319 Funded Projects in 2009

EASTERN REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: TMDLS/303(d)

BASIN / PRIORITY ACTIVITY

SPECIFIC LOCATION

STATUS: TMDLS/ 303(D)

WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM PROJECT NEED

EASTERN REGION Storm-water

Region Wide Bacteria, nutrients, metals, turbidity, sediment

Targeted projects include water quality improvement specific to stormwater impacts including local planning, stakeholder and homeowner education and information program development, feasibility studies and similar efforts.


103

Table 18. DEQ’s Geographic and Programmatic Priorities for 319-Funded Projects in 2009 (Cont.)



SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY


John Day Basin

Channel and Riparian Restoration


Lower John Day, Middle Fork John Day, North Fork John Day, Upper John Day

TMDL in progress

Temperature

Bacteria

Biological criteria

Dissolved oxygen

Sediment

On the Middle Fork John Day River, targeted restoration projects include stream restoration activities in the area of on-going multi-year, multi-agency project work. On the North Fork and Upper John Day River, targeted restoration projects include those activities addressing bacteria, sediment and low dissolved oxygen. Basin-wide targeted restoration project elements include restoring morphologic function (increased sinuosity, decreased width/depth ratios, floodplain reconnection), revegetation of riparian area, increased instream flow.

Targeted effectiveness monitoring projects include development and implementation of monitoring protocols to characterize the effectiveness of implementation projects and project types/elements specific to improving water quality and habitat in the Basin.

Proposed project(s) are expected to include an extensive portion of the stream channel over time rather than isolated small-length segments. Projects correlated with and/or adjacent to other restoration work will be given priority.


104




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY


Mid-Columbia – Hood Subbasin Channel and Riparian Restoration


Western Hood Subbasin, Miles Creeks Subbasin

Western Hood TMDL approved by EPA (Jan 2002)

Miles Creeks TMDL approved by EPA (Feb 2009)

Temperature

Sediment

Bacteria

Pesticides

Targeted projects include activities addressing temperature, sediment, bacteria, and pesticides. Targeted restoration projects include stream restoration activity in the area of on-going multi-year, multi-agency project work. Targeted restoration project elements include restoring morphologic function (increased sinuosity, decreased width/depth ratios, floodplain reconnection), revegetation of riparian area, increased instream flow.

Targeted effectiveness monitoring projects include development and implementation of monitoring protocols to characterize the effectiveness of implementation projects and project types/elements specific to improving water quality and habitat in the Basin.



105




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY


Mid-Columbia – Hood Subbasin Pesticide Stewardship Activities

Western Hood Subbasin, Miles Creeks Subbasin

Western Hood TMDL approved by EPA (Jan 2002)

Miles Creeks TMDL approved by EPA (Feb 2009)

Pesticides Targeted projects include the design and implementation of programs to reduce pesticide transport to surface and ground waters and related impacts to water quality and increase public awareness of improved pesticide use and application practices. Targeted project elements include development of methodologies to monitor and track trends associated with changes in application practices and development of a public education program to increase public awareness of water quality concerns and their role in the solution of identified problems, designing and implementing tools for outreach specific to reduction of pesticides in surface and ground waters and analysis of outreach success.

Projects correlated with and/or adjacent to other implementation work will be given priority.

Malheur River Basin

Pollutant Source Characterization

Lower Malheur Subbasin

TMDL in progress

Temperature

Dissolved Oxygen

Bacteria

Pesticides

Nutrients

Targeted projects include development and implementation of monitoring programs specific to source characterization of elevated water temperatures, nutrients, bacteria, and pesticide concentrations, and depressed dissolved oxygen in local surface and groundwater, and agricultural drains in support of targeting and refining TMDL implementation efforts and changes in management practices.



106




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY


Malheur River Basin

Nutrient Reduction

Lower Malheur River, Willow Creek, and Bully Creek Subbasins

TMDL in progress

Temperature

Dissolved Oxygen

Bacteria

Pesticides

Nutrients

Targeted projects include research, design, and implementation activities that will reduce nutrient loading to the Lower Malheur River, its tributaries and groundwater in the Northern Malheur County GWMA.

Projects correlated with and/or adjacent to other restoration work will be given priority.

Malheur River Basin

Agricultural Implementation

Upper Malheur River Subbasin, Warm Springs Reservoir, Bully Creek

TMDL in progress

Temperature

Dissolved Oxygen

Bacteria

Pesticides

Nutrients

Targeted projects include riparian area restoration activities in the Malheur River Basin. Targeted project elements include revegetation, fencing, grazing management, irrigation management, and effectiveness monitoring to characterize watershed response to implementation projects.



107




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Malheur River Basin

Changes in Agricultural Tillage Practices

Lower Malheur Subbasin

TMDL in progress

Pesticides

Nutrients

Targeted projects include the design and implementation of programs to reduce tillage related impacts to water quality and increase public awareness of improved tillage practices. Targeted project elements include identification of mechanisms to provide ready local access to conservation tillage equipment for multiple producers/landowners, development of a public education program to increase public awareness of water quality concerns and their role in the solution of identified problems, designing and implementing tools for outreach specific to conservation tillage and analysis of outreach success.

Proposed project(s) are expected to include substantial cropped acreage rather than small isolated sections. Projects correlated with and/or adjacent to other implementation work will be given priority.

Walla Walla River Mid Columbia Basin Milton-Freewater Levee Assessment and Potential Restructure

Walla Walla River

TMDL approved by EPA (Sept 2005)

Temperature Targeted projects include the design and implementation of levee setbacks or restructure to allow increased sinuosity and floodplain reconnection while not contributing to downstream flooding risks. Targeted projects also include design and implementation of a community education program specific to the benefits and concerns associated with a levee setback. Projects should be designed to increase public awareness of water quality, fishery habitat and aesthetic improvements related to levee restructure. The Milton-Freewater Levee has been identified as a primary contributor to temperature increases in the river system. Feasibility, design, implementation, and public information projects should be constructed with the goal of allowing water-quality issues to help guide the identification of future levee construction/repair options.


108




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Walla Walla River Mid Columbia Basin Upstream Levee Set back / Removal Assistance Opportunities

Walla Walla River


Temperature Targeted projects include the design and implementation of levee setbacks or removal on stream segments upstream of the Milton-Freewater levee to allow the river to reconnect with the historic floodplain while not contributing to downstream flooding risks. These projects should be designed to increase public awareness of water quality, fishery habitat and aesthetic improvements related to levee restructure.


Walla Walla River Mid Columbia Basin

Pesticide Stewardship Activities

Walla Walla River


Pesticides Targeted projects include the design and implementation of programs to reduce pesticide transport to surface and ground waters and related impacts to water quality and increase public awareness of improved pesticide use and application practices. Targeted project elements include development of methodologies to monitor and track trends associated with changes in application practices and development of a public education program to increase public awareness of water quality concerns and their role in the solution of identified problems, designing and implementing tools for outreach specific to reduction of pesticides in surface and ground waters and analysis of outreach success.



109


EASTERN REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS (GWMAS)


SPECIFIC LOCATION

STATUS: TMDLS/ 303(d)

WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Lower Umatilla Basin Ground Water Management Area (LUB-GWMA)

Action Plan

Umatilla Subbasin

Middle Columbia Basin

Lower Umatilla Basin GWMA established in 1990

Nitrate-Nitrogen

Targeted projects include those specific to reduction of nitrogen concentrations in groundwater including:

• Research and development of activities or products, which will reduce nitrate loading to groundwater – Targeted projects should address one of the five potential nitrate sources identified in the GWMA.

• Revise fertilizer guides and recommended BMPs – Revised guidelines should describe the deficiencies of the current documentation and the number of acres that will be affected by the revisions; as well as evaluate the environmental aspects of the revisions.

• Document BMP implementation on the GWMA scale in a system that allows spatial analysis (e.g., GIS) – Develop and implement a program to track BMP implementation (temporally and spatially) to facilitate quantification and documentation of projects and allow analysis of and linkage to monitoring well water quality relative to BMP implementation.

• Perform field scale BMP performance evaluations – Identify appropriate locations and mechanisms to perform evaluations of BMPs (both existing and experimental) at the field scale. Proposed project plans should have very well developed monitoring plans capable of documenting BMP performance.

• Evaluation of the Mineralization N Test – Comparison of the mineralization N test to other commonly used analyses to allow more accurate budgeting of nitrogen in the GWMA.


110


EASTERN REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS (GWMAS)


SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Lower Umatilla Basin Ground Water Management Area (LUB-GWMA) (Cont.)

• Develop and implement groundwater workshop for growers and certified crop advisors – Develop and sponsor workshops specific to groundwater protection. Ensure that the content is consistent with the intent of the action plans and with groundwater protection goals of DEQ and ODA.

• Develop outreach material/strategy for small acreage growers and/or lawn and garden care – Develop targeted outreach and education programs to educate and reduce loading from small acreage growers and homeowners within the GWMA.

Northern Malheur County Ground Water Management Area (NMC-GWMA) Nitrate Reduction

Lower Malheur River Subbasin

Northern Malheur County GWMA established in 1989

Nitrate-Nitrogen

Targeted projects include:

• Research and development of activities or products, which will reduce nitrate loading to groundwater – Targeted projects should address a potential nitrate source identified in the GWMA.

• Document BMP implementation on the GWMA scale in a system that allows spatial analysis (e.g., GIS) – Develop and implement a program to track BMP implementation (temporally and spatially) to facilitate quantification and documentation of projects and allow analysis of and linkage to monitoring well water quality relative to BMP implementation.


111


WESTERN REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: TMDL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION


SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Coos Sub-basin *4th field HUC

Tenmile Lakes Basin - 5th field HUC

TMDL Implementation

Sediment & nutrient delivery from land management activities in the watershed;

Nuisance and Harmful algae blooms; cyan toxins exceeding human health guidelines

Evaluation and interpretation of data acquired post-TMDL (e.g., cyanobacteria/algae monitoring data) to derive information and develop technical reports; explore relationships among pollutant loading, water quality and lake and environmental conditions. Determine if data adequately address data needs identified in the TMDL and WQMP, and identify data gaps and data needs.

Data management: format and submit data for upload into LASAR. Establish/maintain an effective, accessible system for managing water quality and environmental data that is not currently categorized in the LASAR database (e.g., cyanobacteria/algae monitoring data).

Monitoring water quality parameters to address remaining data gaps identified in the TMDL and WQMP.

Engage in Partnerships to implement high priority projects identified in Designated Management Agencies’ Implementation Plans.


112




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Coos Sub-basin 4th field HUC

Coos Estuary – Isthmus and Coalbank Sloughs

303(d) listed segments;

TMDLs are currently pending development

Land development and management practices resulting in increased pollutant delivery and modified hydrology

Outreach and Education on pollution prevention (P2) measures to landowners, developers, and light industrial entities present on Isthmus Slough. Identification of specific areas for implementation of stormwater BMPs and/or Low Impact Development (LID) Demonstration projects.

LID projects that reduce pollutant loading and interrupt accelerated pollutant delivery, including those resulting from stream channel modifications.

Partnerships involving local jurisdictions (Cities of Coos Bay and North Bend) to better define pollutant loading into urban streams and into Coos Bay from stormwater runoff and stormwater conveyance systems (Pony & Blossom Creeks, Coalbank Slough)

Coos Sub-basin 4th field HUC

Coos Estuary 303(d) listed segments;

TMDLs are currently pending development

Elevated bacteria - Recreational Contact and Shellfish Growing

Waters standards exceedance

Source assessment and “hotspot” identification to identify high priority projects with measurable bacterial reduction targets and that have demonstration potential


113




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Mid Coast Basin – TMDL Implementation and effectiveness monitoring

Siletz-Yaquina, Alsea, Siuslaw and Siltcoos Subbasins

In development; to be completed in 2010

Bacteria,

temperature,

Dissolved oxygen,

Sedimentation

Funds for the Mid Coast Basin have already been allocated to a two-year project that began last year; however, smaller projects that fill gaps in effectiveness monitoring will be considered for this year.

Diamond Lake/Lemolo Reservoir / North Umpqua River

Diamond Lake

Lake Creek

Lemolo Reservoir

North Umpqua River

TMDLs Adopted Aquatic Weeds

Algae

pH

Continued monitoring of lake water quality and biology trends tracking restoration efforts and lake health. Includes impacts to downstream waters

Umpqua Basin Umpqua, South Umpqua

Streams providing & having potential to provide temperature refugia for main stems

TMDLs Adopted Elevated water temperature

Improving and protecting riparian conditions. Riparian planting enhancement and/or restoration. Structures enhancing hyporheic flow.

Needs includes identification of such areas of refugia and potential areas.


114




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Umpqua Basin

Streams lacking system potential vegetation

TMDLs Adopted

Elevated water temperature

Improving and protecting riparian conditions. Riparian planting enhancement and/or restoration. Including structures enhancing hyporheic flow.

Umpqua Basin

Watersheds with specific load reduction needs as noted in TMDLs

TMDLs Adopted

Elevated bacteria and nutrients

Improving and protecting riparian conditions; Riparian planting enhancement and/or restoration, livestock fencing, and off-channel watering, and “other” source reduction implementation BMPs (RR, Urban, Cities, etc.)

Umpqua Basin Streams with elevated levels above background

TMDLs Adopted

Bacteria and nutrients

Additional monitoring to further identify existing elevated levels of NP source loading. Also includes pre and post monitoring documenting effectiveness of project implementation measures

Umpqua Basin Water Quality Plan Development and Implementation

TMDLs Adopted

All Parameters Assistance to Designated Management Agencies (predominantly Cities and Douglas County) for WQMP development and Implementation. Refinement of Action Plans to WQIP


115




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Umpqua Basin Areas of need (such as Sutherlin storm-water impacts to Sutherlin and Cook Creeks reducing toxics)

303(d) listed waters

Accelerated pollutant delivery

Storm-water management planning and implementation assistance for Local jurisdictions not required to develop storm-water plans (i.e., Urbanized Area not meeting designation for MS4 permit)

Umpqua Basin Diamond Lake priority area

All waters Invasive Species Outreach and Education Development of materials and programs to provide educational opportunities and awareness noting water quality beneficial use impairment possible from invasive species introductions


116




SPECIFIC LOCATION STATUS: TMDLS/ 303(D)

WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Willamette River Basin (Outside Portland Metro) Subbasins: Middle Willamette (River Mile 50-108) North Santiam Upper Willamette Subbasin (River Mile108-187)

Gibson Gulch

Labish Ditch

Amazon Creek

Long Tom River

Lukiamute River Tributaries

Beaver, Boulder Pierce, Mackey, Morgan Creeks/ Tributaries to North Santiam

Mission and Champoeg Creeks /Middle Willamette Tributaries

TMDLs Adopted and 303(d) listings

Arsenic

Bacteria

Dissolved Oxygen

Mercury

Pesticides

Temperature

Turbidity

Temperature reduction proposals addressing water quality conditions in both urban and rural settings

Outreach for and implementation of collaborative riparian restoration projects in both urban and rural settings to address temperature and/or erosion of sediment on TMDL streams and tributaries and projects identified in TMDL Implementation Plans

Stormwater planning and implementation of stormwater runoff control strategy or management practice to address erosion of sediments laden with parameters such as, bacteria, metals, pesticides (ex., retrofit surveys and project list; retrofit project; LID urban projects; conveyance mapping)

Specific toxic/parameter reduction projects &/or special partner projects


117




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Willamette River Basin (Outside Portland Metro) Subbasins: Middle Willamette (River Mile 50-108) South Santiam

Rickreall Creek and Tributaries

South Santiam River Tributaries/Hamilton, Ames, and Noble Creek tributaries

TMDLs Adopted and 303(d) listings

Bacteria

Dissolved Oxygen

Iron

Mercury

Nitrates

Pesticides

Temperature

Stormwater planning and implementation of stormwater runoff control strategy or management practice to address erosion of sediments laden with parameters such as, bacteria, metals, pesticides (ex., retrofit surveys and project list; retrofit project; LID urban projects; conveyance mapping)

Special partner projects for the implementation of educational measures addressing illicit discharge for the protection of water quality in urban areas

Willamette River Basin (Outside Portland Metro) Subbasins: Coast Fork McKenzie Middle Fork

Mohawk River Tributaries

Little Fall Creek and Tributaries

Coast Fork Tributaries

TMDLs Adopted and 303(d) Listings

Bacteria

Dissolved Oxygen

Mercury

Pesticides

Temperature

Stormwater planning and implementation of stormwater runoff control strategy or management measure to address erosion of sediments laden with parameters such as, bacteria, metals, pesticides(ex., retrofit surveys and project list; retrofit project; LID urban projects; conveyance mapping)

Outreach for and implementation of collaborative riparian restoration projects in urban and/or rural settings to address temperature and/or erosion of sediment on TMDL streams and tributaries and projects identified in TMDL Implementation Plans


118




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Willamette River Basin (Outside Portland Metro) Subbasins: - Pudding

- Yamhill

Pudding River and tributaries

(e.g., Brush, Mill, Little Pudding, Senecal, Zollner and Silver Creeks; Labish Ditch; Walker Ditch)

Yamhill River and tributaries

TMDLs Adopted, TMDLs Under Development, and 303(d) Listings

Bacteria

Dissolved Oxygen

Iron

Mercury

Nitrates

Temperature

Legacy and Current Use Pesticides

Temperature reduction proposals addressing water quality conditions in both urban and rural settings (e.g., Temperature trading plan)

Specific toxic/parameter reduction or bacteria reduction projects &/or special partner projects (e.g., pesticide collection events, legacy pesticide hotspot monitoring, education/outreach to rural and agricultural landowners in areas of reduced pesticides, manure management, fertilizer management)

Development of riparian or stormwater control ordinances for small sized communities

Stormwater planning and implementation of stormwater runoff control strategy or management measure (ex., retrofit project; LID urban project, conveyance mapping)

Outreach for and implementation of collaborative riparian restoration projects in urban and/or rural settings to address temperature and/or erosion of sediment on TMDL streams and tributaries and projects identified in TMDL Implementation Plans


119




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Rogue Basin Upper Rogue HUC 17100307

Middle Rogue HUC 17100308

Lower Rogue HUC 17100310

Illinois HUC 17100311

TMDLs Adopted

Temperature

Bacteria

Implementation of efforts identified in Water Quality Implementation Plans (WQIP) or Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP). Potentially including:

• development of riparian ordinance,

• stormwater management for non-phase II communities,

• low impact development projects,

• improvement of riparian shade and function,

• control livestock access to streams,

• irrigation improvement projects

• Science-based projects to restore floodplain connectivity and natural wood recruitment.

Rogue Basin Applegate HUC 17100309

TMDLs Adopted

Temperature

Sedimentation



• control sediment sources,

• control livestock access to stream



120




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Rogue Basin Lobster Creek HUC 1710031007

Sucker Creek HUC 1710031103

TMDLs Adopted

Temperature Implementation of efforts identified in Water Quality Implementation Plans (WQIP) or Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP). Potentially including:


• control sediment sources,

• control livestock access to stream


Rogue Basin Bear Creek HUC 1710030801

TMDLs Adopted

Temperature

bacteria

sedimentation

aquatic weeds or algae

phosphorus

dissolved oxygen


• development of riparian ordinance,

• stormwater management for non-phase II communities,

• low impact development projects,


• irrigation improvement projects,

• control livestock access to streams,



121




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Rogue Basin Bear Creek HUC 1710030801

303(d) listing

mercury Investigation of Emigrant Lake 303(d) listing for mercury.

Rogue Basin Upper Rogue, HUC 17100307

303(d) listing

Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae)

Investigation of lost Creek Lake, Lake Slemac or other 303-(d) listed waterbodies for Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae).

Rogue Basin Lower Rogue, HUC 17100310

Category 3B

bacteria – shellfish standard

Investigation of the Rogue estuary 303(d) listing for bacteria.


122


WESTERN REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION (DWSP)


SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Siletz-Yaquina Sub-basin

Drinking water source areas upstream of Newport intake

Source water assessments complete

Bacteria, toxics, sediment, nutrients

Projects addressing higher risk nonpoint source potential contamination documented in DEQ/DHS Source Water Assessments including: stormwater, forest management, agricultural activities, land application sites, and/or river recreation. Projects that include multiple stakeholders/water systems will be given priority. Project activities can supplement TMDL implementation efforts.

Umpqua Basin – South Umpqua

Tributaries and sections of the South Umpqua River within Drinking Water Source Areas

Approved TMDLs; Source Water Assessments Complete

Elevated bacteria and nutrients, toxics, sediment; public water systems reporting high E. coli counts to EPA

Projects addressing higher risk nonpoint source potential contamination documented in DEQ/DHS Source Water Assessments including agriculture and forest management. Projects that also address TMDL implementation efforts are encouraged.

Rogue Basin Drinking Water Source Areas upstream of Gold Beach intake

Approved TMDLs, Source Water Assessments Complete


Projects addressing higher risk nonpoint source potential contamination documented in DEQ/DHS Source Water Assessments including: forest management, stormwater, agriculture, and residential land-use activities. Projects that include multiple stakeholders/water systems will be given priority. Projects that also address TMDL implementation efforts are encouraged.


123


WESTERN REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION (DWSP)


SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Coquille Sub-basin

Drinking water source areas within sub-basin

Source water assessments complete


Projects addressing higher risk nonpoint source potential contamination documented in DEQ/DHS Source Water Assessments including stormwater, agricultural activities, and forest management. Project activities can supplement TMDL development efforts.


124


WESTERN REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS (GWMAS)


SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Western Region Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area

GWMA Nitrate in groundwater

Analysis: Gaps analysis based on the GWMA Action Plan Evaluation. Identify any actions needed to complete strategies, and any strategies that are either missing or require some modifications to arrive at the GWMA goal. Prioritize based on GWMA Committee criteria.

Marketing: Prepare and implement a social marketing program. Include the use of focus Groups for branding the GWMA, identifying barriers for recognition; and/or targeting residents and farmers and their barriers for testing water/using aquifer-safe fertilizer/irrigation practices.

Outreach: Prepare GWMA materials for other agencies. Include a train-the- trainer program. Follow-up on commitment from other agencies to use and present. Tour with involved agencies, staff, etc.

Implementation: Implement priority strategies in the GWMA Action Plan, as identified by the GWMA Committee. Assist with GWMA Committee meeting preparations, schedule, and follow-up with meeting minutes.


125


NORTHWEST REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION (DWSP) AREAS IDENTIFIED CAN BE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.DEQ.STATE.OR.US/WQ/DWP/RESULTS.HTM


SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

All NWR Basins Drinking water source areas with focus on riparian areas/sensitive areas affecting intakes and sensitive areas contributing to groundwater wells.

Source Water Assessments should be completed prior to awarding 319 funding

Bacteria,

Blue green algae

Toxics (emerging pollutants)

Sediment

Nutrients

Projects addressing higher risk nonpoint source potential contamination within sensitive areas based on data and recommendations from the DEQ/DHS Source Water Assessment reports and surface water sampling (by USGS and DEQ) including: household hazardous waste, stormwater, pesticides, agricultural crops, nurseries, forestry, and onsite septic systems. Activities can supplement TMDL implementation activities.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/results.htm�


126


NORTHWEST REGION PROJECT PRIORITIES: TMDLS/303(d)


SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

All NWR Basins/ TMDL Implementation

Clackamas, Lower Willamette, Molalla, North Coast, Tillamook, Tualatin.

TMDLs completed Temperature

Bacteria

Dissolved Oxygen

Nutrients (phosphorus)

Sediment

Toxics (mercury)

Riparian & In-channel restoration (erosion control, Large wood placement).

Pesticide partnership projects and/or specific toxic reduction projects.

Innovative stormwater planning/tools, education and demonstration projects (includes hydromodification modeling, tools, and low impact development approaches practices (LIDA)).

Agriculture BMPs (includes fencing & digester projects)

All NWR Basins/ TMDL Implementation

Clackamas, Lower Willamette, North Coast, Tillamook, Tualatin,

TMDLs completed

Implementation plans in place

Temperature

Bacteria

Nutrients (phosphorus)

Sediment

Toxics (mercury)

Project or TMDL (watershed) Effectiveness Monitoring. Evaluating effectiveness of projects, strategies, and desired outcomes (e.g., increased shade, lower pollutant levels, water quality TMDLs targets met).


127




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Molalla River/TMDL Implementation

Mainstem Completed December 2008

Temperature Restoration/protection activities in upper mainstem coordinated with BLM recreation corridor planning and Molalla River Alliance planning;

TMDL implementation monitoring for cities of Canby, Molalla, Scotts Mills, Clackamas County, and DOGAMI.

Molalla Irrigation District TMDL implementation plan

Field studies and/or models to quantify hyporheic flow; Studies to better understand geomorphology and hydrology (specifically channel widening) that help identify stable restoration areas and reaches that should be protected.

North Fork Temperature Riparian restoration

Monitoring pre/post logging;

Land acquisition

Road abandonment.

Milk Creek Temperature Riparian restoration;

Stream flow monitoring.

Table Rock Fork

Temperature Riparian restoration/protection activities coordinated with BLM recreation corridor planning and Molalla River Alliance planning;

Road abandonment.


128




SPECIFIC LOCATION


WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

PROJECT NEED

Lakes Blue Lake Data Collection

Nutrients

Algae

Invasive Weeds

pH

Invasive weed harvesting/prevention/education efforts;

Pilot projects demonstrating invasive weed control techniques;

Boat cleaning station;

Equipment and apparatus associated with aquatic weed and blue-green algae control;

Water quality, phytoplankton, and plankton project effectiveness monitoring.


129

APPENDIX 3

Review of Willamette Basin TMDL Implementation Plans in Meeting Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements.

The following Willamette River Basin TMDL Implementation Plans were reviewed to determine how closely these most recent plans meet EPA’s Watershed Planning components and Nine Key NPS elements:

• City of Eugene

• City of Creswell

• City Of Lowell

• Benton County

• Upper Willamette and Upper Siuslaw Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan (AgWQMAP)

• BLM Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) (TMDL Implementation Plan) It is important to note that this information is for program review only. None of the DMA TMDL Implementation plans will be required to be revised based on this evaluation. These plans have been determined by DEQ to meet Oregon’s TMDL rule, OAR 340-042-0025 and DEQ’s current TMDL Implementation Plan Guidance Document (http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/docs/impl/07wq004tmdlimplplan.pdf).

http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/docs/impl/07wq004tmdlimplplan.pdf�


130

CITY OF EUGENE

Table 19. City of Eugene TMDL Implementation Plan.

EPA Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS

Elements

Done? Comments

Element 1


Yes Geographic information is included in the TMDL Implementation Plan and attached City Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP).


Yes Water quality standards and designated uses were identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan and SWMP.


Yes Included in the TMDL Implementation Plan and SWMP.


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan and SWMP partially identifies the subcategories of pollutant sources and states that the city will develop plans/maps of the sources. However, it is unclear whether this portion of the EPA element will be completed: “Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation)”.


No The TMDL load allocations and specific pollutant load estimates by category and subcategory, as per EPA’s Element 1.d., above are not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


131

CITY OF EUGENE

Table 19. City of Eugene TMDL Implementation Plan. (Cont.)

EPA Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key

NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 2


No Specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the TMDL Load Allocations (NPS) by category and subcategory is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, pollutant load reductions to meet the TMDL Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from urban stormwater runoff covered by MS4 NPDES permits were included in the SWMP. This Element specifically requires: “On the basis of the existing source, loads estimated for element 1, you will similarly determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards. You will then identify various management measures (see element 3 below) that will help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time. Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope component in paragraph 1 (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks).”


132

CITY OF EUGENE


EPA Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 3


Yes/No General management measures are mostly identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Except for locations of NPDES MS4 regulated stormwater systems; specific measures for NPS sources of pollution, such as location of all needed riparian and wetland restoration areas and locations of streambank erosion needing repair, are not identified in the plan as required by this EPA Element: “The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under element 2, as well as to achieve any additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation & protection).”


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan & SWMP include development of a stormwater systems & a water quality overlay map that identify critical riparian areas where water quality protection actions are needed. However, there is no mention of identifying the need for & specific riparian & wetland restoration areas. In addition, the management measures identified in Element 3.a. are not identified as per: “Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to guide implementation activities and can be greatly enhanced by identifying on a map priority areas & practices.”

Element 4


No Not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. The SWMP for permitted stormwater does include detailed cost figures.


133

CITY OF EUGENE


EPA Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 4


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan does include the associated authorities available, but not the sources or amounts, of financial assistance to implement the NPS management measures as per EPA’s requirements for this Element: “This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures, information/education activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.”

Element 5


Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan includes information/education activities that may support the adoption and long-term operation and maintenance of management practices and support stakeholder involvement efforts.

Element 6

Develop a schedule for implementing the plan. Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan includes a schedule for the completion of selected management actions.

Element 7


Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan does identify the process and timing for review of the Implementation Plan, implementation progress, and revision of the Plan as necessary.


134

CITY OF EUGENE



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 8


No The TMDL Implementation Plan does not meet this element: “... indicate how you will determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met. As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track progress. The criteria in element 8 (not to be confused with water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). These revisions could involve changing management practices, updating the loading analyses, & reassessing the time it takes for pollution concentrations to respond to treatment.”

Element 9


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan includes a TMDL Implementation Tracking Matrix and a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being implemented appropriately. However, the plan does mention the need for but does not include a monitoring component to determine whether progress toward attainment or maintenance of water quality goals is being achieved as per this element requirement: “The watershed plan should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made toward attaining or maintaining the applicable water quality standards. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.”


135

CITY OF EUGENE



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 9

b. Evaluation framework. Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan does include an evaluation process.


136

CITY OF CRESWELL

Table 20. City of Creswell TMDL Implementation Plan.


Elements

Done? Comments

Element 1


Yes Geographic information in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


Yes/No Designated uses were only identified in the TMDL. The water quality standards were identified partially in the TMDL Implementation Plan and all in the TMDL.


Yes Included in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


No The TMDL Implementation Plan does not include this EPA element: “Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation)”.


Yes/No The TMDL load allocations are included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific pollutant load estimates by category and subcategory, as per EPA’s Element 1.d., above, is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


137

CITY OF CRESWELL

Table 20. City of Creswell TMDL Implementation Plan. (Cont.)

Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine

Key NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 2


Yes/No The TMDL load allocations are included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the load allocations by category and subcategory is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. This Element specifically requires: “On the basis of the existing source, loads estimated for element 1, you will similarly determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards. You will then identify various management measures (see element 3 below) that will help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time. Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope component in paragraph 1 (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks).”

Element 3


Yes/No General management measures are mostly identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific measures identified in Table 2, such as location of all needed riparian and wetland restoration areas, locations of streambank erosion needing repair, and locations of existing septic onsite systems with known failing systems are not identified in the plan as required by this EPA Element: “The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under element 2, as well as to achieve any additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection).”


138

CITY OF CRESWELL


Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key

NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 3


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan identifies some critical areas for riparian and wetland restoration but not all areas. The Plan also includes development of a City of Creswell Stormwater Master Plan which will include a stormwater systems map that identifies areas where water quality protection actions. However, there is no mention of whether or the timing of sending to DEQ or incorporating the map into the TMDL Implementation Plan. In addition, the management measures identified in Element 3 a., above, is not identified as required by this EPA Element: “Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to guide implementation activities & can be greatly enhanced by identifying on a map priority areas & practices.”

Element 4


No Not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


139

CITY OF CRESWELL


Key Watershed Planning Components with Nine Key NPS

Elements

Done? Comments

Element 4


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan includes the sources of financial assistance available to implement the management measures. However, the Plan does not address the amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures as per EPA’s requirements for this Element: “This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures, information/education activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.”

Element 5



Element 6


Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan includes a schedule for the completion of selected management actions.


140

CITY OF CRESWELL



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 7


Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan generally identifies that the City of Creswell and the DEQ will periodically review the Implementation Plan and implementation progress and will revise the Plan as necessary.

Element 8


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan meets one of this Element needs: “... indicate how you will determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met”. However, the following parts of the Element are not met: “As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track progress. The criteria in element 8 (not to be confused with water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). These revisions could involve changing management practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution concentrations to respond to treatment.”


141

CITY OF CRESWELL



NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 9


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan includes a TMDL Implementation Tracking Matrix, which includes status reporting every five years. The Plan does state that an annual evaluation could occur if the city or DEQ requests. Regarding monitoring, the Plan includes the following discussion: “The ultimate success of TMDL implementation activities will be measured by the delisting of 303(d) listed streams throughout the Willamette Basin. Those de-listings will occur once supported by water quality monitoring data at key points throughout the Basin. Those sampling activities are best conducted by entities with broad oversight and/or involvement rather than by individual jurisdictions like Creswell. However, if an organization, such as the DEQ or the Coast Fork Watershed Council determines that a sampling site within the City of Creswell is important to an overall sampling program the City will support them in their efforts to establish a consistent sampling location.” This, however, does not fully meet the monitoring component as required by this Element: “The watershed plan should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made toward attaining or maintaining the applicable water quality standards. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.”

b. Develop an evaluation framework.

Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan includes an evaluation process, but does not fully meet this Element as noted above.


142

CITY OF LOWELL

Table 21. City of Lowell TMDL Implementation Plan.


Elements

Done? Comments

Element 1


Yes Geographic information in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


Yes/No Water quality standards and designated uses were identified partially in the TMDL Implementation Plan and all in the TMDL.






Yes/No The TMDL load allocations are included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific pollutant load estimates by category and subcategory, as per EPA’s Element 1.d., above, is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


143

CITY OF LOWELL

Table 21. City of Lowell TMDL Implementation Plan. (Cont.)


NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 2


Yes/No The TMDL load allocations are included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the load allocations by category and subcategory is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. This Element specifically requires: “On the basis of the existing source, loads estimated for element 1, you will similarly determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards. You will then identify various management measures (see element 3 below) that will help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time. Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope component in paragraph 1 (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks).”

Element 3


Yes/No General management measures are mostly identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan. However, specific measures, such as location of all needed riparian and wetland restoration areas, locations of streambank erosion needing repair, and locations of existing septic onsite systems with known failing systems are not identified in the plan as required by this EPA Element: “The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under element 2, as well as to achieve any additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection).”


144

CITY OF LOWELL



NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 3


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan identifies the need to identify critical areas for riparian and wetland restoration. The Plan also includes development of a Stormwater Master Plan which will include a stormwater systems map that identifies areas where water quality protection actions. However, there is no mention of whether or the timing of sending to DEQ or incorporating the map into the TMDL Implementation Plan. In addition, the management measures identified in Element 3 a., above, is not identified as required by this EPA Element: “Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to guide implementation activities and can be greatly enhanced by identifying on a map priority areas and practices.”

Element 4




145

CITY OF LOWELL



Done? Comments

Element 4


No The TMDL Implementation Plan does not include the source, amounts of financial assistance, and associated authorities available to implement the management measures as per EPA’s requirements for this Element: “This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures, information/education activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.”

Element 5



Element 6



Element 7


No The TMDL Implementation Plan does not identify a process or timing for review of the Implementation Plan, implementation progress, and revision of the Plan as necessary.


146

CITY OF LOWELL



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 8


No The TMDL Implementation Plan does not meet this element: “... indicate how you will determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met. As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track progress. The criteria in element 8 (not to be confused with water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). These revisions could involve changing management practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution concentrations to respond to treatment.”

Element 9


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan includes a TMDL Implementation Tracking Matrix and stormwater point discharges for bacteria and mercury. However, the plan does not fully meet this element requirement: “The watershed plan should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made toward attaining or maintaining the applicable water quality standards. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.”


147

CITY OF LOWELL



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 9

b. Develop an evaluation framework. No The TMDL Implementation Plan does not include an evaluation process.


148

BENTON COUNTY

Table 22. Benton County TMDL Implementation Plan.


Elements

Done? Comments

Element 1


Yes Geographic information is included in the TMDL Implementation Plan as a narrative description of Benton County and the major and minor tributaries that flow into the Willamette.


Yes/No Water quality standards and designated uses were partially identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan and all in the TMDL.






No The TMDL load allocations and specific pollutant load estimates by category and subcategory, as per EPA’s Element 1.d., above are not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan.


149

BENTON COUNTY

Table 22. Benton County TMDL Implementation Plan. (Cont.)


NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 2


No Specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the load allocations by category and subcategory is not included in the TMDL Implementation Plan. This Element specifically requires: “On the basis of the existing source, loads estimated for element 1, you will similarly determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards. You will then identify various management measures (see element 3 below) that will help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time. Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope component in paragraph 1 (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks).”

Element 3


Yes/No General management measures are mostly identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Except for locations of existing septic onsite systems with known failing systems; specific measures for other sources of pollution, such as location of all needed riparian and wetland restoration areas and locations of streambank erosion needing repair, are not identified in the plan as required by this EPA Element: “The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under element 2, as well as to achieve any additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection).”


150

BENTON COUNTY



Elements

Done? Comments


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan includes an Environmental Assessment Priority List that identifies critical areas for onsite septic systems needing correction. The Plan also includes development of a Stormwater Master Plan that will include a stormwater systems map that identifies areas where water quality protection actions are needed. However, there is no mention of identifying riparian and wetland restoration areas. In addition, the management measures identified in Element 3 a., above, is not identified as required by this EPA Element: “Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to guide implementation activities and can be greatly enhanced by identifying on a map priority areas and practices.”

Element 4




Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan does include the associated authorities available and the source, but not amounts, of financial assistance to implement the management measures as per EPA’s requirements for this Element: “This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures, information/education activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.”


151

BENTON COUNTY



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 5



Element 6



Element 7


Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan does identify the process and timing for review of the Implementation Plan, implementation progress, and revision of the Plan as necessary.


152

BENTON COUNTY



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 8


No The TMDL Implementation Plan does not meet this element: “... indicate how you will determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met. As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track progress. The criteria in element 8 (not to be confused with water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). These revisions could involve changing management practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution concentrations to respond to treatment.”

Element 9


Yes/No The TMDL Implementation Plan includes a TMDL Implementation Tracking Matrix and a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being implemented appropriately. However, the plan does mention the need for but does not include a monitoring component to determine whether progress toward attainment or maintenance of water quality goals is being achieved as per this element requirement: “The watershed plan should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made toward attaining or maintaining the applicable water quality standards. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.”


153

BENTON COUNTY



Elements

Done? Comments

Element 9


Yes The TMDL Implementation Plan does include an evaluation process.


154

UPPER WILLAMETTE AND UPPER SIUSLAW AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN

Table 23. Upper Willamette and Upper Siuslaw Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan (AgWQMAP).


Elements

Done? Comments

Element 1


Yes Geographic information in the AgWQMAP.


Yes The water quality standards and designated uses were identified in the AgWQMAP.


No This element is not specifically identified in the AgWQMAP, but is identified in the TMDL.


No The AgWQMAP does not include this EPA element: “Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation)”.


No The TMDL load allocations are not included in the AgWQMAP.


155


Table 23. Upper Willamette and Upper Siuslaw Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan (AgWQMAP). (Cont.)


NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 2


No The TMDL load allocations and specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the load allocations by category and subcategory are not included in the AgWQMAP. This Element specifically requires: “On the basis of the existing source, loads estimated for element 1, you will similarly determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards. You will then identify various management measures (see element 3 below) that will help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time. Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope component in paragraph 1 (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks).”

Element 3


Yes/No General and recommended only management measures are identified in the AgWQMAP. However, specific required measures, such as location of all needed riparian and wetland restoration areas, locations of streambank erosion needing repair, and locations of existing sources and types of bacteria needing control and/or treatment are not identified in the plan as required by this EPA Element: “The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under element 2, as well as to achieve any additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection).”


156




NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 3


No The AgWQMAP does not identify critical areas for riparian and wetland restoration but not all areas. In addition, the management measures identified in Element 3 a., above, is not identified as required by this EPA Element: “Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to guide implementation activities and can be greatly enhanced by identifying on a map priority areas and practices.”

Element 4

b. Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including management measures, administration, information/education activities, and monitoring.

No Not included in the AgWQMAP.

c. Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures.

Yes/No The AgWQMAP includes the sources of financial assistance available to implement the management measures. However, the Plan does not address the amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures as per EPA’s requirements for this Element: “This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures, information/education activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.”


157




NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 5


Yes The AgWQMAP includes information/education activities that may support the adoption and long-term operation and maintenance of management practices and support stakeholder involvement efforts.

Element 6


Yes/No The AgWQMAP includes a schedule for education and technical/financial assistance to agricultural farm owners. However, for all other management measures, the plan does not include a schedule for the completion.

Element 7


No Not included in the AgWQMAP.


158




NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 8


No The AgWQMAP includes recommended management measures, such as Area Rules that are goal-oriented and describe characteristics that should be achieved on agricultural lands, rather than practices that must be implemented. As such, the plan does not meet this element: “As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track progress. The criteria in element 8 (not to be confused with water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). You should also indicate how you will determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met. These revisions could involve changing management practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution concentrations to respond to treatment.”

Element 9


Yes/No The AgWQMAP partially meets this element by providing biennial assessment reporting to ODA and recommends developing an instream monitoring program. However, the plan does not fully meet this element: “The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.”


159




NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 9


Yes/No The AgWQMAP includes a general evaluation process, but does not fully meet this element as noted above.


160

BLM WATER QUALITY RESTORATION PLAN (WQRP)

Table 24. BLM Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) (TMDL Implementation Plan).


Elements

Done? Comments

Element 1


Yes Geographic information in the WQRP (TMDL Implementation Plan).


Yes Water quality standards and designated uses were identified in the WQRP.


Yes Included in the WQRP.


Yes The WQRP includes this EPA element: “Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation)”.


Yes/No The TMDL load allocations are included in the WQRP. However, specific pollutant load estimates by category and subcategory, as per EPA’s Element 1.d., above, is not included in the WQRP.


161


Table 24. BLM Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) (TMDL Implementation Plan). (Cont.)


NPS Elements

Done? Comments

Element 2


Yes/No The TMDL load allocations are included in the WQRP. Specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the temperature load allocations by category and subcategory are included in the WQRP. However, specific pollutant load reductions needed to meet the mercury load allocations by category and subcategory are not included in the WQRP. This Element specifically requires: “On the basis of the existing source, loads estimated for element 1, you will similarly determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards. You will then identify various management measures (see element 3 below) that will help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time. Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope component in paragraph 1 (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks).”

Element 3


Yes/No Management measures to achieve load reductions for temperature are identified in the WQRP. The WQRP identifies specific management measures and their load reduction estimates that would be needed to achieve the temperature load allocations in each subbasin. Whereas for mercury, BLM does propose to use BMPs listed in Appendix A for any forest management or land use activity, such as timber harvesting, road building, etc. However, BLM does not identify specific management measures by location with their load reduction estimates that would be needed to achieve the mercury load allocations in each subbasin. This element requires: “The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under element 2, as well as to achieve any additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection).”


162




Done? Comments


Yes/No The WQRP identifies the specific locations of critical areas for riparian restoration to meet the temperature load allocation. However, the WQRP does not identify the specific sources of erosion by type or location of critical areas to meet the mercury load allocation. This would include the locations of roads, active landslides, streambank erosion, or other existing erosion sources needing restoration. To meet this element for mercury, the following are required by EPA: “Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to guide implementation activities and can be greatly enhanced by identifying on a map priority areas and practices.”

Element 4


No Not included in the WQRP.


No The WQRP does not include the source, amounts of financial assistance, and associated authorities available to implement the management measures as per EPA’s requirements for this Element: “This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures, information/education activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.”


163




Elements

Done? Comments

Element 5


Yes/No The WQRP does not include information/education activities that may support the adoption of the plan. Instead, for individual restoration projects and proposals, developed as elements of this plan, BLM will go through public review pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act [NEPA]. The WQRP states: “…the Water Quality Restoration Plan will not be distributed for public comment, unless the review is conducted as a function of an Oregon DEQ or Environmental Protection Agency’s administrative proceeding”.

Element 6


Yes/No The WQRP includes a schedule for the completion of management actions to meet the temperature load allocation, but not for mercury.

Element 7


No The WQRP does not identify a process or timing for review of the Implementation Plan, implementation progress, and revision of the Plan as necessary.


164


Table 24. BLM Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) (TMDL Implementation Plan). (Cont.) Key Watershed Planning Components

with Nine Key NPS Elements Done? Comments

Element 8


No The WQRP does not meet this element: “... indicate how you will determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met. As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track progress. The criteria in element 8 (not to be confused with water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). These revisions could involve changing management practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution concentrations to respond to treatment.”

Element 9

1. Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being implemented appropriately and whether progress toward attainment or maintenance of water quality goals is being achieved.

Yes/No The WQRP generally describes WQRP implementation and effectiveness monitoring. However, the plan does not fully meet this element requirement: “The watershed plan should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made toward attaining or maintaining the applicable water quality standards. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.”

2. Develop an evaluation framework. Yes The WQRP does include an evaluation process.


165

Appendix 4

2010 - 319 Grant Request for Proposal

Evaluation Criteria for 2010 - 319 Project Proposals Project’s Emphasis The 2010 RFP encourages projects that will benefit water quality in the focus areas, especially impaired waters. It emphasizes the concept of on-the-ground implementation activities or measurement of pollution reduction programs in the following areas:

• TMDL Implementation • 303(d) listings • Ground Water Management Areas (GWMAs) • Drinking Water Source Areas

Eligibility Those eligible to apply include public and private nonprofit organizations and institutions, including watershed councils and SWCDs. Also, eligible are state, local, tribal, and federal governments.

Selection Process for This Year DEQ continues to implement a similar strategy used for the 2009 319 Grant Request for Proposal, which is to rely on DEQ’s regional staff recommendation for funding. Regions should select and prioritize the proposals they received for their Region. DEQ Headquarter staff will review the prioritized proposals. EPA Region 10 will be involved early in the process of ranking. EPA comments will be addressed as needed. Finally, the DEQ Regional and Headquarter Managers will make the final recommendation to the DEQ Water Quality Division Administrator. The process will be:

• Regional review and prioritization of proposals received for that Region or by HQ staff where appropriate,

• Review of Regional recommendations by HQ and EPA Region 10, • Feedback to Regions on proposals to be recommended for funding, • Recommendation to DEQ Regional and Headquarter Managers and WQ DA for

funding, and • Submittal to EPA Region 10.


166

Only projects that are ranked “high” by the DEQ Headquarters (HQ) and Regions will be funded. Ranking Criteria The 319 project priorities are updated yearly and included in the annual Request For Proposals (RFPs). The priorities provide the guidance for on the ground activities at the watershed level. As such, the review for the proposed workplans received, as a result of the RFP, are initially reviewed at the regional level, and then given a final perusal at the statewide level. We encourage our stakeholders considering applying for 319 funds to develop a strategy for implementation of the on-the-ground projects and cultivate the working relationships at various levels, including leveraging our funds. This aspect of the proposed workplan is considered in the review. This review at the regional level provides the proposed work a very thorough input that has proved very valuable for the applicants for its focused plan. Project proposals will be evaluated and prioritized for funding based on how well the proposal addresses a DEQ geographic and programmatic priority identified in Appendix A of the 2010 319 RFP for 319 funded projects, available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/grants.htm .priority. The 2010 RFP states that for projects not in Appendix A, contact the DEQ 319 Grant Project Officer to determine if your project would be a priority for DEQ. Contact your DEQ 319 Grant Project Officer for specifics on the ranking criteria and the selection process that will be used in that DEQ Region. The amount of funding per Region is around $390,000. The amount of funding for HQ is approximately $382,000. If not all funds are used by a Region or HQ, then a group will be convened to recommend how the remaining funds should be spent. The group will be one person from each Region and one person from HQ. 2010 – 319 Funding Categories In Figure 8, the 2010 – 319 funding categories and funded amount are identified. The total funds for 2010 includes re-obligated funds from the funding years 2005-06 in the amount of $131,000. For the 2010 319 NPS Implementation Grants, Oregon has received project requests for a total of $1,556,193 in the following project categories: BMP Implementation (45%), BMP Planning (24%), Restoration (22%), GWMA Implementation (5%), Effectiveness Monitoring (4%), and Information and Education (<1%).

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/grants.htm�


167

Figure 8. 2010 Funding Categories of Project Proposals Received in Response to the 2010 RFP.


168

Project Proposals Received Table 25. Project Proposals Received in Response to the 2010 RFP.

PROJECT PROPOSALS RECEIVED, OREGON DEQ 2010 319 PROJECT SOLICITATION

Project # Region Basin Applicant Title Match Proposed 319

Budget

010-21 HQ, Cross Regions (CR)-

Willamette Oregon Assoc. of Clean Water Agencies

Incorporate Oregon Priority PPP List into Prominent Product Ranking Tools $10,000 $11,057

010-48 HQ, CR Willamette Pesticide Stewardship Program DEQ $148,000 $222,000

010-22 HQ, CR-WR/NWR Statewide ODF ODF Ripstream: Stream Temperature Changes

Over Time $77,280 $83,000

010-06 HQ, CR-WR/NWR

Willamette/S. Santiam Freshwater Trust StreamBank: Upper Willamette and South

Santiam Subbasin NPS Reduction Project $60,000 $30,000

010-07 ER Powder River Powder River WSC Powder River Restoration – Kirkway Reach $223,655 $23,400

010-09 ER Deschutes OEC Central Oregon LID $20,000 $27,000

010-18 ER Umatilla OSU Meacham Ck Restoration and Bioassessment $34,528 $48,489

010-43 ER Owyhee/Malheur Malheur Co SWCD Warmsprings Irrigation District Return Flow

And Land Use Evaluation $45,000 $65,542

010-44 ER Owyhee/Malheur Malheur Co Extension Strip tillage in Malheur and Owyhee

Watersheds $88,201 $85,730

010-45 ER Umatilla Umatilla Co Extension Apple Sunburn Prevention Using Organic Biofilms $80,000 $80,000

010-46 ER Walla Walla Walla Walla Basin WSC Milton Freewater Levee Assessment $103,473 $120,000

010-05 NWR Tillamook Nestucca-Neskowin Watersheds Council (NNWC)

2010-11 NNWC Streamside Planting and Maintenance $26,800 $40,000

010-10 NWR Tualatin Tualatin River Keepers 5000 Acres Initiative $245,000 $51,914


169

Table 25. Project Proposals Received in Response to the 2010 RFP. (Cont.)



Budget

010-13 NWR Willamette City Repair DEPAVE $6,162 $9,245

010-14 NWR Willamette Blue Lake Improvement Association Inc Blue Lake Invasive Weed Harvesting Project $20,000 $17,600

010-15 NWR Willamette West Multnomah SWCD Sauvie Island Pesticide Collection Event $8,250 $11,720

010-16 NWR Clackamas Clackamas Co WES Regional BMP Sizing Tool Development To Address Hydromodification $80,600 $51,385

010-17 NWR Tillamook Up Nehalem WSC Up Nehalem Riparian Restoration and Basin WQ Monitoring $49,000 $42,841

010-26 NWR Tillamook Tillamook Co SWCD Tillamook SWCD 2010 Stream Enhancement and Restoration $46,000 $44,045

010-35 NWR Tillamook TEP 2011 Tillamook Co CWF $4,300 $6,250

010-36 NWR Tillamook TEP BYPP Year 8 $26,800 $40,000

010-38 NWR Clackamas Clackamas RWP Pesticide Roundup Events $43,440 $44,000

010-08 HQ, CR-WR-NWR Willamette OSU CES

L.I.D. Academy – A Cohort Education And Technical Assistance Program For Small To Medium-Sized Communities

$76,650 $6,000

010-06 HQ, CR-WR/NWR Willamette Freshwater Trust StreamBank: Upper Willamette and South


010-03 WR Umpqua PUR Implementation Monitoring of Umpqua Basin, Diamond Lake TMDL $12,000 $15,000

010-08 WR Willamette OSU CES L.I.D. Academy – A Cohort Education And Technical Assistance Program For Small To Medium-Sized Communities

$76,650 $60,100

010-11 WR Mid-coast Lincoln County SWCD Mid Coast Basin NPS Implementation Initiative, Part II $72,025 $72,480


170

Table 25. Project Proposals Received in Response to the 2010 RFP. (Cont.)



Budget

010-25 WR Upper Willamette GWMA

LCOG SWVGWMA Action Plan Analysis, Marketing and Implementation $117,378 $72,480

010-27 WR Ten Miles Ten Mile Lakes TMDL Partnership Ten Mile Lakes TMDL Implementation $117,000 $25,000

010-28 WR Illinois Valley Illinois Valley SWCD Sucker Creek Channel and Floodplain Restoration Phase II $516,000 $20,000

010-29 WR Rogue OSU ES Jackson County

Streamside Gardening: An Innovative Approach To Improving Riparian Shade And Function

$11,000 $21,555

010-31 WR Bear Creek City of Medford Medford Bacteria Source Roundup $9,600 $7,320

010-40 WR Umpqua Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers Diamond Lake Modeling Project, 2010-2011 $35,982 $41,184

010-47 WR South Coast Targeted Water Quality Outreach to Coos Bay Coos Watershed Association $30,000 $29,856

010-06 HQ, CR-WR/NWR Willamette Freshwater Trust StreamBank: Upper Willamette and South


Totals $2,540,774 $1,556,193



Documents

Oregon Nonpoint Source Program 2008 Annual Report · 2010. 4. 21. · Oregon Nonpoint Source Program 2009 Annual Report . E-1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . Background . This Nonpoint Source